A WRIT OF MANDAMUS CAN ONLY BE ISSUED IF THE PETITIONER ESTABLISHES A LEGAL RIGHT IN HIMSELF AND A CORRESPONDING LEGAL DUTY IN THE RESPONDENT.

ORDER :

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief :

“… to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in taking steps to remove the Petitioner as Sub-Staff without regularizing his service by conducting the examination in pursuance of orders dated 18.01.2011 in Civil Appeal No.953 to 968 of 2005 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court even though the Petitioner has completed more than 12 years of service as Sub-staff and trying to appoint some other candidate in his place treating the same as vacant as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential direction to the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as Sub-Staff by duly regularizing his service as per the orders dated 18.01.2011 in Civil Appeal No.953 to 968 of 2005 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court along with all consequential and attendant benefits in the interests of justice and pass such other …”.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner worked as Sub-Staff under respondent No.4 for the period from 2005 to 2010 at Giddalur branch office, Nellore Division. Thereafter, from 26.06.2010 onwards, petitioner was asked to work at Satellite Office, Cumbum under the control of respondent No.4. Though the petitioner has been working since 2005, respondent No.4 did not issue proof of temporary employment certificate to the petitioner.

3. Corporation filed SLP (Civil Appeal) Nos.953-968 of 2005 before the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein an affidavit was filed stating that Corporation formulated a scheme where under all the eligible class IV employees as also open market candidates, who had appeared for examination for recruitment as class IV employees in the year 1996 shall be absorbed. Recording the same the Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of the appeals. Pursuant to the said order, dated 18.01.2011 the Corporation conducted ‘one time limited’ examination to the persons working in LIC for more than five years and who possessed minimum eligible qualification. Interviews were conducted to temporary employees, who were successful in the written test and also to open market candidates separately, in the month of July, 2011.

4. Petitioner though has been working from 2005, his services were not regularized. Respondent-Corporation disengaged persons working on temporary basis, as sub-staff. Corporation is making payments of salary through NEFT from January 2017. Corporation adopted a new procedure of making payments i.e. weekly once from 01.01.2018 that too in different names and is insisting petitioner to sign the voucher in the said name.

5. Number of persons approached High Court and High Court granted interim orders. Petitioner, apprehending that he will be dis-engaged, filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra.

6. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. It was contended, inter alia, that petitioner was engaged as daily wager, intermittently as, and when need arises, to do miscellaneous jobs such as dusting, filing, serving water, cleaning, maintenance of office etc. The petitioner, neither recruited by the Corporation as per the procedure nor was issued any appointment letter by any authority. The averment in the writ affidavit that petitioner has completed more than 12 years is specifically denied.

7. Pursuant to the order in SLP No.953-968 of 2005, as one time measure, to regularize temporary employees, who were working on continuous basis for five years as on 18.01.2011 and had possessed eligibility criteria, Corporation has called for applications by issuing notification dated 20.05.2011. Based on written examination and interview, eligible temporary employees were appointed as Peons long back in 2011-2012. Petitioner did not apply in response to the no