APHC010772842014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 11163/2014 Between: S. Venkat Mohana Rao S/o Madhava Rao ...PETITIONER AND The Superintendent Engineer Operation Circle and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P LAXMA REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) 2. V V SATISH The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in providing job of Lower Division Clerk/Record Assistant or any other post under the Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service Rules. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working under registered contractor during the year 1994 to 2001 as a casual labour and that the contractor has also issued service certificate. Some of the employees similarly placed as that of the petitioner have filed W.P.No.10320 of 1998 before this Court and sought a direction for considering their case for absorption against 50% unfilled vacancies in terms of BP Ms. No.36. This Court vide order dated 16.04.1998 directed the respondents therein to consider the claim of the petitioner. The respondents have regularized the service of the petitioners therein. Some of the contract laborers who worked under registered contractors approached Human Rights Commission and sought a direction for considering their appointment in terms of the BP Ms No.36 and respondents also considered their case and appointed the said petitioners who approached the Human Rights Commission. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was equally working on par with the other contract labour whose services were regularized by the respondents after having obtained orders from the Court and the case of the petitioner was not considered for the sole reason that the petitioner did not approach any Court and obtained any order. It is submitted that the respondents have considered the case of the employees who obtained orders of this Court to consider their case for absorption under BP Ms. No.36. 4. There is no representation for the respondents and no counter has been filed though the Writ Petition is filed in the year 2014. 5. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking blanket direction to extend the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.10982 of 2002 to the petitioner herein passed in favour of the other petitioners who approached this Court. The relief granted by this Court in W.P.No.10982 of 2002 is confined to the petitioners therein and the same cannot be extended to the petitioner herein. It is also not known as to whether the petitioner is still in service in the respondent. 6. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the petitioner is still in service of the respondents either on contract or casual or on consolidated 4 basis, it is left open to the petitioner to make representation to the concerned authorities seeking extension of similar relief and respondents shall considered the case of the petitioner for absorption and regularize the services of the petitioner subject to availability of any vacancies. 7. With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ HARINATH.N,J MH 30.01.2025 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N 70 WRIT PETITION NO: 11163/2014 MH 30.01.2025