IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) 15/03/2010 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5108 of 2010 Between: Smt. K. Vijay Lakshmi W/o D.Dharma Raju ..... PETITIONER AND The Govt. of India represented by its Principal Secretary GAD Central Secretariat, New Delhi and one another .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order-dated 8.12.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 786 of 2008, as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working with the second respondent as peon doing all the work of a class IV employee i.e., sweeping, dusting, filling water, gardening, canning, and shifting files etc since 1997. It is stated that the second respondent also given a Service Certificate dated 4.3.2004. As similarly situated persons like the petitioner are going to be regularised, she also requested the respondents to regularize her services and submitted a representation dated 5.12.2007 to the second respondent. It is also stated that the second respondent by ignoring her physical condition, and she being woman belonging to SC community instead of helping her he has not taken any steps on the representation submitted by her. Being aggrieved by the same, she filed O.A No. 786 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal while disposing of the applications held as under: “Without going through the point of regularization, we find it fit and appropriate to direct the respondents to dispose of this application by directing the respondents to dispose of the representation submitted by the applicant and communicate the decision thereon to the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to such a direction. According to us, her case deserves sympathy and considering that she had been working for 1997, the respondents shall in future, consider her case in preference to others for engagement provided there is need.” The learned Assistant Solicitor General, representing the respondents has drawn our attention to the letter-dated 2.6.2009 of the Estt. And Accounts Officer, Survey of India, Indian Institute of Surveying and Mapping, Uppal, Hyderabad, issued to the petitioner herein, the relevant portion at paragraph 2, it is specified as under: “You were absolutely given work for caning of hairs on payment as and when required by this office. A certificate was issued by our Assistant Stores Officer on your own request to get caning works from other Govt. offices. The letter issued to Main Gate Security was given to allow you inside in connection with chair caning works.” A plain reading of the above said letter shows that the petitioner was allowed inside in connection with the chair caning work and that by itself does not confer any right for seeking regularisation of her services. For seeking regularisation the post should borne in the cadre and she has to fulfil the parameters laid down under the scheme and unless and until she comes within the scheme she cannot claim regularisation of her services by asking positive direction. Therefore, regularisation of her services does not arise. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ___________________________ NOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date:15.03.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies