Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Basheer Ahmed vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 July, 2025
1
*
APHC010210942025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH .
AT AMARAVATI
B
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY. THE SECOND DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARaWjAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 11264^F 20?.*;
Between:
1. K Bashee'r Ahmed, S/o. Hussain Saheb, Age 59 Years, Working as
Inspector Grade-ll, Telugu Ganga Project Distribution Division-I
Nandyal, Kurnool District. '
2. D.Srinivas Reddy, S/o. D.Yerukala Reddy, Age 55 Years, Working
Inspector Grade-Ill, Telugu Ganga Project Distribution Division No.,
Nandyal, Kurnool District.
3. L.Sreenivas Redddy, S/o. L.Nagi Reddy, Age 58 Years, Working as
Inspector Grade-Ill, Telugu Ganga Project Distribution Division No.,
Nandyal, Kurnool District. x
...Petitioners
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary to
Government, Irrigation and CAD Department Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Guntur District.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary to
Government, Finance''Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur
District.
3- The Engineer in Chief (IW), Ramavarapupadu Feeder Road, Currency
Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
4. The Superintendent Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project Circle, Nandyala,
Kurnool District.
5. The Executive Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project Division, Nandyala,
Kurnool District.
6. The Executive Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project Division-1, Velogodu
Kurnool District. .-
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring that ajproceedings issued
No.SE/TGP/NDL/AB/Supdated./A3/ 65M, dated 31-01-2019 of the 4th
respondent is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and also issued without
power and authority therefore they are violative of article 14,16 & 21 of the
Constitution of India and liable to be set aside, b) declare that petitioners are
entitled for regularization of their services as Work Inspectors / AE's or any
equivalent cadre, in view of their prolonged service of more than 29 years.
c) Petitioners who are similar situated like Petitioners in W.P.No.43^1/2020,
they are also entitled for the same relief as was passed by order dated
V''-'
20.12.2024 in W.P.No.4361/2020.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners for
regularization of their services strictly in terms of orders passed by this
Hon'ble Court in WP No.20145 and 21887 of 2003, dated 27-08-2018 by
suspending the orders passed in No.SE/TGP/NDL/AB/Supdated./A3/65 M,
dated 31-.01-2019, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
r ■
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR SERVICES I
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6: GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following order:
APHC010210942025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3506]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 11264/2025
Between;
1.K BASHEER AHMED, S/0. HUSSAIN SAHEB, AGE 59 YEARS,
WORKING AS INSPECTOR GRADE-II, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT
DISTRIBUTION DIVISION-I, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
2.D.SRINIVAS REDDY, S/0. D.YERUKALA REDDY, AGE 55 YEARS,
WORKING INSPECTOR GRADE-III, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT
DISTRIBUTION DIVISION NO., NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
3.L.SREENIVAS REDDDY, S/0. L.NAGI REDDY, AGE 58 YEARS,
WORKING AS INSPECTOR GRADE-III, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT
DISTRIBUTION DIVISION NO., NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION AND CAD
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3.THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF IW, RAMAVARAPUPADU FEEDER ROAD,
CURRENCY NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4.THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT
CIRCLE, NANDYALA, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT DIVISION,
NANDYALA, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT DIVISION- \
1, VELOGODU, KURNOOL DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Pstition under Aiticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased topleased to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that a)proceedings issued
No.SE/TGP/NDL/AB/Supdated./A3/ 65M, dated 31-1-2019 of the 4th
respondent is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and also issued without
power and authority therefore they are violative of article 14,16 85 21 of the
Constitution of India and liable to be set aside, b) declare that petitioners are
entitled for regularization of their services as Work Inspectors / AE's or any
equivalent cadre, in view of their prolonged service of more than 29 years, c)
Petitioners who are similar situated like Petitioners in W.P.No.4361/2020, they
are also entitled for the same relief as was passed by order dated 20 12 2024
in W.P.No.4361/2020. d) and pass
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners for
regularization of their services strictly in terms of orders passed by this
Hon'ble Court in WP No.20145 and 21887 of 2003, dated 27-8-2018 by
suspending the orders passed in No.SE/TGP/NDL/AB/Supdated./A3/65 M
dated 31-1-2019, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1 .SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
I .GPfOR SERVICES I
2.GPFOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT PETITION No.11264 of 2025
ORDER:
Petitioners assail the proceedings dated 31.01.2019, passed by 3'"'^ respondent, rejecting their case for regularization of services.
2. (a) By aforesaid speaking order dated 31.01.2019 request made by six employees including three petitioners herein came to be rejected. Petitioners claim that they were initially appointed as Hand receipt workers and paid daily wages. Some of them were later absorbed and regularized into service, vide G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 06.02.2001. In view of the same, proposals were made for conversion of HR workers into LuskersAA/.l's as special case. Government has extended minimum time scale of pay to such workers, including petitioners as well, and later.
petitioners were brought into work charged establishment according to their educational qualifications.
(b) Employees who were initially appointed as NMR/work charged personnel were considered for regularization.
accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 06.02.2001 came to be issued giving benefit to 39 HR workers. Petitioners claiming parity along 9 CGR, J W.P. No. 11264 of 2025 with them, they also sought for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, the said request, however.
was not considered on account of petitioners not completing five years of service as on 25.11.1993.
(c) Petitioners filed W.P. Nos.20145 and 21887 of 2003, challenging the award passed by Labour Court, in which they were unsuccessful and sought for regularization on par with similarly situated persons and by taking into account G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 06.02.2001. This Court disposed aforesaid writ petitions by common order dated 27.08.2018 directing respondents therein to consider the case of petitioners if they are otherwise found eligible and qualified.
(d) By impugned speaking order on 31.01.2019, said request came to be rejected. Three of the persons aggrieved by said rejection order, preferred W.P. No.4361 of 2020 and this Court by judgment dated 20.12.2024, allowed the said writ petition by setting aside impugned order dated 31.01.2019 and further directed the respondents to regularize the services of petitioner from date of completion of ten years of their service in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in Kodali Raju and others c ;
CGR, J W.P. No. 11264 of 2025 V. APSRTC, Hyderabad and others^ within a period of four months. The other three petitioners who are parties to the said speaking order preferred present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as this Court has already set aside the speaking order dated 31.01.2019 in respect of three other co-employees in aforesaid writ petition, as petitioners also stand on some footing, the judgment rendered above would squarely apply to them.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents placed on record written instructions dated 01.07.2025 stating that the rejection order dated 31.01.2019 has I been challenged by three of the co-employees in W.P. No.4361 of • 2020 and after contesting, the same later came to be allowed.
5. On consideration of aforesaid submissions, it is not in dispute that the claim made by petitioners herein and as well as petitioners in W.P. No.4361 of 2020, came to be rejected by speaking orders dated 31.01.2019, which came to be set aside by this Court by directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners therein. Even in the written instructions placed 2011 (1) ALD 234 1 W.P. No. 11264 of 2025 on record, it is not disputed that petitioners stand on same footing.
6. As the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.4361 of 2020 have not been appealed so far and considering the submissions that the case of petitioners are in paramateria with the petitioners . in aforesaid writ petition, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the orders passed in W.P. No.4361 of 2020. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// IT ^ SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Irrigation and GAD Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Principal Secretary to Government Financd^ Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
3. The Engineer in Chief IW, Ramavarapupadu Feeder Road Currency Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
4. The Superintendent Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project Circle, Nan'dyala, Kurnool District.
5. Kurnool The Executive En^neer, Telugu Ganga Project Division, Nandyala, District. ^
6. The Executive Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project Division-I, Vdogodu, Kurnool District. "
7. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju Advocate [OPUC]
8. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
9. Two CCs to GP for Services li. High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
10. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of order in WP No. 4361 of 2020) HIGH COURT DATED:02/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 11264 OF 2025 o? andhS o 5 H JUL 2025 m Co ^ . Current iseciion ^ ^fSPATCV»5!?-
ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS
APHC010072S72020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 4361/2020
Between:
B.suresh, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitloner(S}:
1. SRI NIVAS A RAO MADIRAJU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES III
2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP)
3. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV
The Court made the following Order:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
" to issue a writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that (a)proceedings issued No.SE/TGP/NDL/AB/Supdt./A3/65M, dt; 31-1-2019 of the 4"* respondent is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and also issued without power and authority therefore they are 2 violative of article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and liable to be set aside (b) declare that petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services as Work 1 Inspectors/AE's or any equivalent cadre, in view of their prolonged service of more than 29 years "
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering, petitioner did Intermediate and ITI-Fitter Grade, 3'^'^ petitioner did Diploma-LME and 4^^ petitioner did Intermediate, The petitioners were initially joined as Hand Receipt Workers. The 1 St petitioner joined on 28.11.1990, 2^^ petitioner Joined on 16.05.1989, 3^^ petitioner joined on 16.01.1989 and 4*^ petitioner joined on 01.03.1990. The petitioners were being paid wages on daily wages/SSR rates. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 28.08.1986 relaxed ban on recruitment of NMR/work charged personnel. Hence, 39 HR workers were absorbed/regularized into service vide G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 06.02.2001. While so, the Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 28.04.2006 has submitted proposals for conversion of HR workers into Luskers/W.l's as special case. Accordingly, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.79, dated 22.05.2009 extending minimum time scale of pay+DA to 281 HR workers including petitioners in RPS 2005. They were also extended the RPS of 2010, 2015, etc. and petitioners were brought into work charged establishment, according to their educational qualifications. All the petitioners were continuously working as such however, in work charged establishment.
They have been allotted to different divisions of Telugu Ganga Project. The 3 petitioners have been continuously and uninterruptedly working in Telugu Ganga Project since more than 29 years, on NMR basis. Several persons working as HR workers in Telugu Ganga Project appointed as NMRs/Daily Wages/Contingent employees, the Government considered their services and issued G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 06.02.2001 regularizing 39 HR workers working in different categories into service. Though the petitioners are similarly situated persons, as they do not come under the purview of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, the Government did not regularize the service of the petitioners on the ground that they have not completed 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993. Further, the 4*'^ respondent has sent proposals vide his letter dated 06.07.2017 to 3'*^ respondent recommending the cases of the petitioners and others for regularization for their service and categorically stated that there will not be any financial burden to the Department, since the petitioners were already drawing time scale in RPS and the 4'^ respondent also addressed another letter to District Collector on 04.04.2018 on the same lines. While things stood thus, the 4'^ respondent issued a speaking order No.SE/TGP/NDL/AB/Supdt./A3/65M, dated 31.01.2019 rejecting the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The 4'^ respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the writ petition and mainly contended that, the petitioners have not fulfilled the conditions of G.O.I\/ls.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, hence their 1 services were not regularized. It is further contended that the persons who were regularized into service vide G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 06.02.2001, the petitioners are not similarly situated persons, but working as HR workers. The petitioners have not completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993, to regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and also in terms of G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 06.02.2001. Therefore, the order of rejection dated 31.01.2019 is valid and not illegal, arbitrary and not treated as violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Mr.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD Department, appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing for respondent No.2.
5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the petitioners have been continuing in service for more than two decades, but their services were not regularized. Hence, the petitioners and others have approached the Labour Court, Anantapur and filed I.D.No.206/1997 209/1997, 4211/1997, etc. The Labour Court directed for regularization of the services of the petitioners in I.D.No.209 and 211 of 1997. But no orders were passed in I.D.No.206 of 5 1997. Further, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.20145 and 21887 of 2003 and this Court disposed off the writ petitions, by taking into consideration of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi\ directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of the above said judgment, if the petitioners are otherwise found eligible and qualified and pass appropriate orders. Fie further submits that the persons, who are working as NMR's in Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and who have completed more than ten years of service filed W.P.No.27217 of 2017 and this court disposed the writ petition, directed for regularization of services of the petitioners, keeping in view of the above said judgment. He further submits that, some of the NMRs in Khammam Municipality also and the approached this Court for regularization of their services Commissioner, Khammam Municipality complied the orders and regularized the services of petitioners, following the Judgment of Apex Court, vide G.O.Rt.No.116, dated 25.01.2014. The petitioners herein also similarly situated persons and they are entitled for regularization of their services. He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. ML Kesari^, held that if a person has completed more than 10 1 2006 (4) see Page 1 2 2010 (9) see 247 6 years of service, he is entitled for regularization of services and the petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service by 10.04.2006.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kodali Raju and Others V. APSRTC, Hyderabad and Others^, wherein it was held as follows
18. Here it is a case of casual appointment and may not be through selection process. It can at best be said to be an irregular appointment, but not an illegal appointment. The sweeping and cleaning of buses is a perennial work attached to the main activity of the Corporation. Since the petitioners have been treated as working continuously for more than 10 years, regularization of their services have to be considered in the light of the said judgment. During the years 2004 and 2010, more than 4000 posts were sanctioned by the Government for regularizing the services of temporary/ contract employees working in the Corporation. The Judgment rendered in Umadevi's case further was explained in State of Karnataka v. L Kesari (supra), wherein it is stated that the true effect of the direction at paragraph 53 of Judgment in Umadevi case is that all persons who have worked for more than 10 years as on 10.04.2006 without the protection of any interim order of any Court or Tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The continuation of petitioners in the Corporation of petitioners in the Corporation for the last more than 21 years itself can be construed that there are vacant posts available and the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services and to be put on regular timescale."
7. Further, relied on C. Mahender and Others V. Pottisreeramulu Telugu University, Hyderabad"^, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court for the State of Telangana, held as follows;-
"45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.
^2011(1) ALD 234 2020 (4) ALD 379 (TS) (DB) 7
48. It is not known why the 1st respondent has not followed the decision in Umadevi's case (supra), as explained in M.L.Kesari's case (supra) and undertaken a one-time exercise of preparing the list of daily wage employees, who had worked for more than ten (10) years without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 10.04.2006 and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess requisite qualifications for the posts, and if so, regularize their services. "
8. Learned counsel further relied on a decision of composite High Court at Hyderabad in U.V.S.R.Prasad and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another^, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench held as follows:-
"10. From the material discussed above and the admissions made in use counter- affidavit of respondent No. 2, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have been working as Work Inspectors from the years 1990-1992. It is also not in dispute that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case(supra), was rendered in the year 1996, they have completed more than 10 years of service. Para 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), reads as under:
One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.Narayanappa, 1967 (1) SCR 128; R.N.Nanjundappa, (1972) 1 see 409 and B.N.Nagarajan, (1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in Para 15 above of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of-Tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date."
11. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioners fully satisfied the criteria laid down in the above reproduced Para in Uma Devi's case (supra). But, as noted herein before, they have taken the stand that as Act 2 of 1994 governs the services of the petitioners, unless the latter satisfy the requirement of completing 5 5 2018 (2) ALD 282(08) 8 years of service as on 25.11.1993, they are not entitled to be considered for regularisation.
\
12. In State of Karnataka v. M.L Kesari (supra), a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has explained the true purport of the directions contained in Para $3 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), in the below reproduced part of the judgment
5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularization' enunciated in Umadevi's case (supra), if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in July sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or Tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointment are not made or continued sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointment are considered to be regular....''
16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). M/as rendered, the provisions of Act 2 cf 1994 and G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various Stare enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/ absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1594 and G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994, do Work Inspectors not whittle down the width and the judgment in Manjula Bashini's case (supra), does to their satisfying not lower the trajectory of the directions Para No.53 of its judgment in Uma devi's case (supra). It is therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 19 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny regularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra).
Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to allow the writ petition.
99. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD Department while reiterating the contents urged in the counter affidavit, submits that, the persons working as NMRs in Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and who have completed more than ten years of service also regularized is not similar to this case. Their duties and departments are entirely different which cannot be compared to present time scale employees. The statement of petitioners that who are working in Khammam Municipality regularized is also not similar to this department. He ■ I further submits that, in compliance of the order of this Court passed in W.P.Nos.20145 and 21887/2003, speaking orders were issued to the petitioners stating that, as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, unless a person has put in five years of service by 25.11.1993 and was continuing as temporary employee/NMR, they are not entitled to be regularized and that admittedly, the petitioners have not satisfied the eligibility criterion. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for regularization even on the basis on the judgment in Karnataka Vs Uma Devi. He further submits that, the petitioners 1 and 3 are diploma holders, but not eligible to be appointed/abso rbed/ regularized as AE's, since they have not fulfilled the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. He further submits that, even on the basis on the judgment in Karnataka vs. ML Kesari, the petitioners have not completed more than 10 years of service by 10.04.2006 in the regular post.
Hence, the proceedings vide No.SE/TDP/NDL/AB/Supdt./A3/65M, dated 10 31.01.2019 issued by the 4'" respondent is vaiid and legal. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition.
10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader relied on a decision of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Vibhuti Shankar Panday v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others^, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench held as follows:-
'4. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition gave directions for regularization of the appellant from the date on which his Juniors were regularized. This order was challenged by the State Government before a Division Bench which allowed the appeal of the State Government The Division Bench rightly held that the learned Single Judge has not followed the principle of law as given by this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, as initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily-rated employee must be working. These two conditions were clearly missing in the case of present appellant. The Division Bench of the High Court therefore has to our mind rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 27.06.2019. "
11. Further, relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in University of Delhi v. Delhi University Contract Employees Union and Others \ wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench discussed Umadevi's case and held are not entitled to benefit of regularization only for the reason that they had put in minimum 10 years of continuous service as envisaged and further held that though benefit of regularization cannot be granted, window of opportunity must be given to them (2023) 3 see 639 ' (2021) 16 see 71 11 to complete with available talent through public advertisement, considering that as of now most of them had completed 10 years of contractual service.
12. Further, relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Apex Court in Upendra Singh v. State of Bihar and Others^, wherein it was held as follows:-
"8. Law pertaining to regularization has now been authoritatively determined by a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors v. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1; (AIR 2006 SC 1806). On the application of law laid down in that case, it is clear that the question of regularization of daily wager appointed contrary to law does not arise. This ratio of the judgment could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant as well. That is why she continued to plead that the appointment of the appellant was made after following due procedure and in accordance with law.
The appellants claim to have been regularized within the staffing pattern. In out opinion, it is not the crux of the matter. The crucial question is if their initial appointment by the Managing Committee was in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India by open advertisement and competitive merit selection. On account of various interpretations by more than one Bench of M.L.Kesari (AIR 2010) SC 2587) (supra) reference was made to the Full Bench. We have already noticed from the order refusing regularization dated 13.08.2003 that the appointment of the Appellants on daily wage was not in consonance with the law."
13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the official respondents further contended that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant AIR 2018 SC 1315 12 posts. Mere continuation of service by an temporary or ad boc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into i service. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily wage service for a iong number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if they are not working against a sanctioned post as held by the Hon'bie Supreme Court i in State of Rajasthan and Others v. Daya Lai and Others^. Further, relied on a recent decision of this Court in Sudhamani and Others V. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others wherein learned Single Judge held that mere publication of an advertisement does not make the petitioners appointment a valid appointment as per the constitutional scheme. It was also clarified that merely because of a temporary employee continued beyond the term of their appointment, they would be absorbed into regular service and made permanent merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not by a 'due process' of selection, Therefore, this Court following the decisions of the Apex Court in Umadevi and M.L. Kesari's case held that proper method of selection ISi need to be notified. There should be an advertisement/wide publicity , examination, interview or the like to prove that there was a competitive testing/elimination process after a proper screening of the applicants. That is the approved/recognized scheme for appointment.
' air 2011 sc 1193 2021 (6) AID 519 (AP) 13 Then only the petitioners were duly appointed. Therefore, the petitioners are not duly appointed by proper procedure and hence, they are not entitled to claim any benefit in this writ petition and requested to dismiss the same.
14. Perused the record.
15. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the 4*^ respondent issued speaking orders dated 31.01.2019 and the operative portion reads as follows:
"In the light of the above explained facts and circumstances, the petitioners are hereby informed that, they are not eligible for regularization of seivice and they cannot compare their services with already regularized persons of G.O.Ms.No.26, Dated 06-02-2001 and hence, as per Act in force, their services cannot be regularized. Hence, it is rejected in accordance with the policy of the Government."
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the decisions relied by the learned Assistant Government Pleader would not apply as the case of the petitioners for continuation of service in the Corporation more than a decade. Therefore the petitioners are entitled to claim benefit of regularization of their services.
17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and following the decisions of this Court relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the case of the petitioners can be considered for regularization by considering their long standing position in their respective cadres. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition, setting aside the impugned proceedings vide 14 No.SE/TGP/NDL/AB/Supdt./A3/65M, dated 31.01.2019 issued by the 4»' respondent.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings No.SE/TGP/NDL/AB/Supdt./A3/65M, dated 31.01.2019 issued by the 4*^ respondent is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of completion of 10 years of their service in terms of the order Kodali Raju' case i.e., W.P.No.24377 of 2007 within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19. There shall be no order as to costs.
20. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 20-12-2024 BMS