IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURALBE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.10821 of 2010 Between: M.Satish Kumar … Petitioner And The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, (GHZ), JBS, Picket, Secunderabad and another. … Respondents THE HONOURALBE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.10821 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in canceling the petitioner’s regularization (appointment on time (scales) of services as driver as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice by setting aside officer order No.P3/255(1)/2010-RNG-II, dated 06.04.2010 of the respondent No.2 herein and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as regular driver by allowing with regular time scales of the concerned posts. Along with the said writ petition, the petitioner also filed WPMP. No.13835 of 2010 seeking to suspend the officer order No.P3/255(1)/2010-RNG-II, dated 06.04.2010 by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as regular driver by allowing with regular time scale of pay to the concerned post. This Court by order dated 30.04.2010 while admitting the writ petition, passed interim suspension as prayed for in WPMP. No.13835 of 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 30.04.2010 passed in WPMP. No.13835 of 2010 has been complied with. He further submits that similar batch of writ petitions were filed by the similarly situated persons and the same were allowed. Therefore, this writ petition may also be allowed in terms of the order already passed in the similar batch of writ petitions. He also filed a copy of the order dated 27.10.2010 passed in W.P. No.26648 of 2010 by this Court. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. From a perusal of a copy of the order dated 27.10.2010 passed in W.P. No.26648 of 2010 that the facts and circumstances are similar to that of the present writ petition. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is the Driver and the petitioner in the W.P. No.26648 of 2010 is the Conductor. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel and taking into consideration the order dated 27.10.2010 passed in W.P. No.26648 of 2010, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is set aside, however, by leaving it open to the first respondent to pass orders afresh, after issuing notice to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 21.03.2011 LSK