IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 9469 of 1999 Between: 1 K.Ramachandra Reddy S/o.K.Nagi Reddy, Hindu Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. Balaji Colony, Tirupathi. Chittoor District. 2 K.M.Shanmugam Chetty S/o.K.M.Markandeya Chetty, Hindu Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. Old Peta, Bazar Street, Chandragiri Post & Mandal. Chittoor District. 3 T.L.Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o.T.Ramamohan Reddy, Hindu Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. R/o. Door No.10/92, Maruthinagar (West), Tirupathi. Chittoor District. 4 C.Madhusudhan S/o.Ch.Munirathnam, Hindu Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. R/o.D.NO.6- 10-235, Singalagunla, Tirupathi. Chittoor District. 5 T.Sudhakar Reddy S/o.T.Ramachandra Reddy, Hindu Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. R/o.D.No.19/8/122.D, SBI Colony, Tirupathi Chittoor District. 6 S.Murali Krishna S/o.S.N.Narasimha Murthy, Hindu Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. R/o.D.No.9-3- 141, Porla Street, Tirupathi. Chittoor District. 7 C.Vijay Kumar S/o. C.Subba Raju, Hindu Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. R/o.D.NO.14- 1-74, Nehru Street, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 8 J.Venkateswarlu S/o.J.Prabhakar, Hindu Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. R/o.7-6-324, Mitta Street, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Sri Venkateswara University, Rep. by its Registrar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 The Superintending Engineer Engineering Department S.V.University, Tirupathi, Chittoor. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in continuting the petitioners as Contract Labour in the Engineering Section of S.V.University, Tirupathi, Chittoor District for the last several years as illegal, arbitrary and unfair labour practice and consequentially , direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners as work Inspectors in respect of the existing vacant posts, of work Inspectors available in Engineering section of S.V.University, pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO The Court made the following Order: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to absorb the services of the petitioners all of whom claim to be working as Work Inspectors with the respondent- University. It is evident from the pleadings that the petitioners were all appointed subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22-04-1994, and that they were not in the service of the respondent-University as on 25-11-1993. No scheme of regularization which conferred a right on the petitioners to claim regularization has been brought to the notice of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would, however, contend that while the respondent-University had initially engaged the petitioners through a contractor, from the year 2003 onwards they were being engaged directly, paid salary directly, granted pay scales and were being transferred from one department to another. On a query from the Court as to whether there is any such averment in the affidavit, learned counsel would seek time to file a detailed affidavit in this regard. I see no reason to grant further time when the writ petition relates to the year 1999. Since no scheme of regularization, which conferred a right on the petitioners to claim regularization, has been brought to the notice of this Court, no Mandamus can be issued to the respondent-University to consider their request for regularization of their services. The contention, urged on behalf of the petitioners, that they are now being engaged directly without following the earlier method of being engaged through a contractor is, however, a matter which requires further examination since the respondent-University was precluded from making such appointments. Since none of these details form part of the pleadings on record, it is appropriate that the petitioners herein be permitted to make a representation to the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the first respondent is directed to consider their representations and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months thereafter. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________ 07-03-2008 usd