A.NARSIMHA REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Scorned by the slip caused by the minute shortfall of service, for the application of the circular of the High Court dated 06.01.2004, (herein after referred to as the circular) directing to recruit the full time and part time Masalchies, who have put in more than 15/10/5 years of service in their respective units for recruitment to the posts of Attenders, the petitioner, who is also a part time masalchie, comes before us by way of this writ petition, seeking for such recruitment as an Office Subordinate. His long wait of all these seventeen long years, since the date of the circular, with a hope that history would repeat, did not fetch him any benefit of the like, which similarly placed employees earlier had.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as part time masalchie on 31.07.1999 and has been working as such since then and also as on the date of the circular of the High court issued in the year 2004. Petitioner would have become eligible for recruitment as office subordinate under the said circular but for the shortage of few months to complete five years of service. He then made a representation to the High Court on 11.05.2015 stating that there is a post of office subordinate vacant in the Court of Special Judge for Economic Offences and he sought for relaxation of age, to become eligible for being appointed in the said vacancy. Petitioner still awaits reply from the High Court. Not being successful in the said attempt, the petitioner seeks to go under the circular dated 06.01.2004 drawing comparison with another employee, who, he alleges, was recruited under the said circular, even after the date for the application of the circular has expired.

(3.) One M. Srinivasulu, part time masalchie, was recruited as an attender by relaxing his age, by virtue of the proceedings of the High Court dated 12.05.2009. Under an impression that since the direction was given on 09.04.2009, by which date this petitioner also became eligible by completing his five years of service as part time masalchie, the petitioner contends that he also is eligible for such recruitment. But a reading of the relevant material on record shows that, after the High Court issued the circular dated 06.01.2004, unit heads of various units forwarded the names of part time masalchies and the process of approving the said masalchies to be recruited under the circular was taken up by the High Court and the direction for appointment of said M. Srinivasulu is a consequence of such consideration. A list of 39 masalchies was approved by the High Court and M. Srinivasulu is one candidate in the list, figuring at Sl.No.38. Hence, the understanding of the petitioner that M. Srinivasulu was appointed subsequent to the said circular is misconceived and no parity can be drawn between them.