( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is directed at the instance of the appellants - APSRTC against the order of the learned single Judge made in W. P. No. 6133 of 1990 dated 25-3-1997.

( 2 ) THE Writ Petition was filed by the employees of the Corporation seeking a direction to the Corporation to regularise the services of the writ petitioners from the date of their initial appointment. The learned single Judge disposed of the above said writ petition filed by the employees of the Corporation with a direction that the rcgularisation of services of the petitioners shall be considered keeping in view of the directions granted by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 705 of 1995.

( 3 ) SRI C. V. Ramulu, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-Corporation submits that an employee is entitled to seek regularisation of his services provided a clear vacancy was available as on that date and if such clear vacancy exists, he would be appointed in such regular vacancy. It is fairly submitted that the services of the employees were to be regularised taking into consideration his initial appointment and completion of 240 working days. He is also right in his submission that the employee is not entitled to the arrears for the period between the initial date of appointment and the date on which actual regularisation was made. The principles that are to be borne in mind in the case of regularisation of the services of the employees have been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130. It would be relevant to extract paras 12 and 17 of the said judgment which would govern the case on hand. They arc summarised in head-note c of the said judgment and it is as follows :"the Court must, while giving directions for regularisation of services act with due care and caution. It must first ascertain the relevant facts and must be cognizant of the several situations and eventualities that may arise on account of such directions. A practical and pragmatic view has to be taken, inasmuch as every such direction not only tells upon the public exchequer but also has the effect of increasing the cadre strength of a particular service and that too unconditionally acted hastily. The direction that all those adhoc/temporary employees who have continued for more than an year should be regularised is unsustainable. The direction has been given without reference to the existence of a vacancy. The direction in effect means that every ad hoc/temporary employee who has been continued for one year should be regularised even though (a) no vacancy is available for him- which means creation of a vacancy, (b) he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor was he appointed in pursuance of a notification calling for applications which means he had entered by a back-door, (c) he was not eligible and/or qualified for the post at the time of his appointment, (d) his record of service since his appointment is not satisfactory. Moreover, from the mere continuation of an adhoc employee for one year, it cannot be presumed that there is need for a regular post. Such a presumption may be justified only when such continuance extends to several years. Further, there can be no rule of thumb in such matters. Conditions and circumstances of one unit may not be the same as of the other. Just because in one case, a direction was given to regularise employees who have put in one year s service as far as possible and subject to fulfiling the qualifications, it cannot be held that in each and every case such a direction must follow irrespective of and without taking into account the other relevant circumstances. and considerations. The relief must be moulded in each case having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances of that case. It cannot be a mechanical act but a judicious one. "

( 4 ) THUS, it is clear that the High Court cannot issue a blanket direction to regularise the services of the employees on completion of a particula

Click Here to Read the rest of this document