IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10598 of 2008 Between: Konakala Raja Babu S/o late KRishna Swamy R/o C/o K. Chandraleela D.No. 51/2/102, Rajendranagar Rajahmundry, E.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Bank Rep by its General Manager ( Personnel Department ) Central Office, Sultan Bazar Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager Andhra Bank Regional Office Kakinada, E.G.District. .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as sub.staff in Andhra Bank in East Godavari District and further not continuing the petitioner as sub.staff in Andhra Bank regularly every month as illegal, arbitrary Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.S.NANDA Counsel for the Respondent No.: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10598 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner seeks a declaration to the effect that the action of the respondents in not regularizing his services as sub-staff in the 1st respondent-bank is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner states that he has been engaged in various capacities on temporary basis between 1986 and 1996 intermittently for a period of 294 days. On that basis, he claims that he is entitled to be regularized in service. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. In all fairness, the petitioner had furnished the particulars of the days, on which he is said to have been engaged on temporary basis. The engagement of the petitioner, even according to him, is not continuous either in terms of months or days. In other words, in no month, he was engaged for full working days and in no year, he was engaged during all the months. At any rate, he has not been engaged even in such a casual and sporadic manner, for the past one and half decades. With this background, the petitioner cannot make any claim against the respondents at all. The petitioner is not able to place any material before this Court in support of his claim, be it, in the form of any administrative orders or decided cases or enacted provisions of law. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________ 27.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TSSB} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10598 of 2008 Date: 27.06.2008 JSU