THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITIN No.7211 of 2001 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal. A consequential direction is sought to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post of driver with effect from the date of his initial appointment in the respondent corporation. The petitioner was appointed as a driver on temporary basis in the Telugu Bala Mahila Pragathi Pranganam at Kadapa on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,200/- per month. Though his initial appointment was for a period of six months, he was, however, continued in service ever since. By proceedings dated 27.05.1994, the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that he was converted as a driver-cum-attender which was an inferior post. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No.29590 of 1995. Sri V. Jagapathi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was, thereafter, reconverted as a driver. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to be regularized in service, and to be paid the minimum pay in the time scale of pay, since he has been working for the past ten years. It is his case that, despite repeated representations, no orders of regularization have, as yet, been passed. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh started the Telugu Bala Mahila Pragathi Pranganam at Kadapa to train deserted, destitute and economically backward educated, uneducated and unemployed woman; the training programme was provided through the Telugu Bala Mahila Pragathi Pranganam at Kadapa with financial assistance from the District Rural Development Agency; in addition to the instructors, the Administrative Staff is said to consist of a District Manager and other posts all of which are purely on a temporary basis; the Government is providing aid to meet the consolidated pay of the Administrative Staff; no regular posts have been created for instructors nor are there any regular or permanent posts created on the administrative side for the purpose of running the TBMPP programmes; the petitioner is not thrown out from service; and none of the administrative staff were extended the time scale of pay nor were they absorbed in terms of G.O.Ms. No.212 dated 22.04.1994 as there are no regular sanctioned posts. Sri V. Jagapathi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that, in view of the averments in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner may not be entitled for regularization. According to the Learned Counsel, in view of the specific averment in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner is being continued and is not thrown out of service, the interim order directing his continuance should be made the final order in the Writ Petition. On the other hand Sri J.S. Raju, Learned Standing Counsel, would submit that the petitioner, as at present, is being continued, and the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner, if acceded to, would result in the respondents being required to continue him in service till he attains the age of superennuation even if the Government were to later stop financial assistance in this regard. Since the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is for regularization of service, which Counsel on either side would agree cannot be granted, and in as much as the respondents admit that the petitioner is not being thrown out from service, ends of justice would be met if the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner except after issuing notice to him and giving him an opportunity of being heard. It is made clear that the interim order does not survive disposal of the Writ Petition and, in case the respondents are satisfied that the petitioner’s services can no longer be continued, it is open to them to put him on notice, give him an opportunity of being heard, and to take action thereafter in accordance with law. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 09.12.2010 MRKR