HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. ANANDA REDDY W.P.NO. 12258 OF 2005 DATED: 26.9.2007 Between: S. Amarender and others … Petitioners and The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. ANANDA REDDY W.P.NO.12258 OF 2005 ORAL ORDER: (per GR.J) The petitioners have all been engaged as contingent staff on several dates in the year 2000, in the Warangal District Judicial unit. In the year 2001, they were also called upon to perform the functions of attenders, on part-time basis. They seek regular appointment as attenders in existing vacancies, in terms of the 2nd respondent’s circular dated 6.1.2004. This circular directs all unit heads to consider the cases of qualified full-time and part-time Masalchies (other than the age qualification), who have put in more than 15/10/5 years of service in the respective units, for recruitment to the post of attenders, subject to availability of roster points, by giving preference to the senior-most amongst them, on the basis of the length of service. Complaining that the benefits of this circular have not been extended to them and they have not been considered for regular appointment as attenders, the writ petition is filed. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is clearly and categorically asserted that as on the date of the 2nd respondent’s circular dated 6.1.2004, none of the petitioners has put in even the minimum 5 years of service requisite under the circular dated 6.1.2004, for consideration for regular appointment as attenders. Each of the petitioners had put in service ranging from 3 years 23 days to 3 years 11 months and none had completed even 4 years of service in a context where the circular extends the benefit only to those Masalchies, who had completed at least 5 years of service. The petitioners do not contest this statement of fact recorded in the counter affidavit. Therefore, even in terms of the 2nd respondent’s circular dated 6.1.2004, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits specified thereunder. There are no merits. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------------- GODA RAGHURAM, J ---------------------------------- S. ANANDA REDDY, J Date: 26.09.2007 cvm