S PURUSHOTHAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KARIMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as Work Inspector on daily wage basis in the Engineering wing of the 4th respondent which is under the control of the 2nd respondent. He is aggrieved by the proceedings in A5/1569/APCS/94 dated 23-3-1999 (impugned proceedings) issued by the 2nd respondent. By the said proceedings, the petitioner's claim for regularisation of his services in the 2nd respondent was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner prays this Court for issue of a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings as contrary to the orders of this Court dated 18-2-1999 in W.A.No. 1276 of 1998 and pass further orders directing the respondents to regularise his services in the 2nd respondent. The facts in brief are as follows: The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Caste Service Co-operative Society is an apex body having District Scheduled Caste Co-operative Societies at District level. They have various district units under the control of Executive Director. The entire funding is by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The affairs of the Apex body and other district units are controlled by the Government in a pervasive manner. The basic purpose of these societies is to lookafter the welfare of the Scheduled Caste persons having economic empowerment as the goal. It functions not with a profit motive but with a welfare motive. Its success can only be measured with reference to more number of persons it helped to stand on their legs and coming out of stage of proverty and penury. I am rather constrained to make these introductory remarks as the present case shows that the powers that beseem to have forgotten the object with which the service co-operative society for SC persons came to be established.

(2.) The petitioner joined the Karimnagar unit of the Society, the 6th respondent in 1987. He joined as an NMR Work Inspector. He is a Matriculate with ITI Draftsman course. His initial appointment was from among the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Sometime in July, 1988 he was terminated. In the writ petition filed by him, being Writ Petition No. 5233 of 1989, this Court passed interim order to continue the petitioner. Therefore, he was taken to duty from 27-3-1990 onwards. He worked continuously for more than half a decade and claimed that his services be regularised. He also complains that one Mr. Sami Reddy who was his junior was regularised in service in January, 1997 itself and the same treatment was denied to him. Be that as it may, on 24-1-1997 this Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 5233 of 1989 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 22-4-1994.

(3.) After his unsuccessful repeated representations, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 1289 of 1997 complaining that the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5233 of 1989 were flouted. The petitioner says that after receiving the notice in the contempt case, the first respondent issued proceedings No. 2240 / Estt/89 dated 13-2-1998 rejecting his claim for regularisation. The grounds of rejection are as follows: