M RAMBABU Vs. DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners had questioned G.O. Ms. No.7, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 21-1-1997 and also prayed for a direction to the respondents to regularise the petitioner in the vacant posts of Attenders as per seniority list of casual labourers dated 25-11-1993 and seniority list of casual labourers dated 31-12-1995 and pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) Certain of the writ petitioners i.e., writ petitioners 2, 5, 4, 13, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26 etc., filed OA No.50235 to 299 of 1990 and Batch on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad along with the several others wherein the relief prayed for is:

(3.) The President of the Animal Husbandry Workers Union had filed the writ petition on behalf of 25 casual labourers who are members of the said workers union questioning the G.O. Ms. No.7, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 21-1-1997. It is stated that the seniority list of casual labourers working with the respondents-Department at Visakhapatnam was prepared on 25-11-1993 and this list consists of all the persons including SCs., S.Ts., and B.Cs., and out of the said persons in the list some of the persons were regularised from time to time according to seniority list after completion of 10 years of service, irrespective of their educational qualifications. It is the case of the petitioners that they have also completed 10 years of service. But however, they are not being regularised. It is also stated that by issuing G.O. Ms. No.7, dated 21-1-1997, 23 casual labourers are sought to be regularised and the claim of the petitioners for being considered for regularisation is not being considered despite the fact that the petitioners are seniors. In fact, in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, several grounds had been specified in detail why the impugned G.O. Ms. No.7, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 21-1-1997 is not sustainable.