K SUNDAR Vs. KAKATIYA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant - writ Petitioner and Respondent 5 were assigned the charge of the posts of Supervisors on 8.8.1989. Vide G.O. Ms. No. 47 dated 17-2-2009, services of several employees were regularized including the Appellant with effect from 4.1.1990. Though order is to his benefit, yet he is aggrieved, on the ground that regularization of his services against a subsequently created post of supervisor would pave the way for regularization of his junior, the Respondent 5, against a post that was in existence right from the date charge was assigned to the Petitioner. To appreciate the controversy in its right perspective, the orders of assignment of charge against the posts of Supervisors of both the Petitioner and Respondent 5 respectively, may be noticed:

(2.) A perusal of these orders makes it clear that the Petitioner and the Respondent 5 were assigned the charge on 8.8.1989 and both these orders provide specifically for drawing their salary from existing post of Supervisor of the Buildings Division. In that view of the matter, we find no substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that Appellant alone is entitled to be regularized against the available vacant post, for the simple reason that both are assigned the charge of higher posts on the same day. In substance and in essence Petitioner seeks a restraint to be placed upon the official Respondents, from placing the Respondent 5 ahead of him. The contention is urged, even without there being an order like that. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this writ petition emanates from a mere apprehension, therefore, it is not sustainable.

(3.) The Appellant in his anxiety to ventilate the grievance, questioned the order of regularization of his services to the regular post of Supervisor under the aforesaid G.O. The grievance sought to be made out by the Appellant - writ Petitioner is clearly imaginary and is without any factual foundation. The prosecution of the writ petition and an appeal thereof, on the basis of an imaginary grievance and unfounded apprehension, amounts to abuse of process of the Court and such litigations need to be discouraged in order to save public time of the Courts which otherwise would have been utilized for adjudication of a real subsisting grievance of a party.