THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.9042 & 23272 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in both the writ petitions were employed as Junior Assistants-cum-Typists, in the year 1986-87, in the Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University, the 2nd respondent. Earlier, they approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20273 of 1996, with a prayer to direct the University to regularize their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 (for short ‘the G.O.). The writ petition was disposed of on 09.07.1997, directing that the cases of the petitioners be considered in terms of the G.O. The petitioners contend that instead of regularizing their services, the University has only extended the benefit of pay scale attached to that post. The University issued a notification dated 05.10.2010, proposing to fill 5 posts of Junior Assistants-cum-Typists, reserved for Scheduled Castes. W.P.No.9042 of 2011 is filed challenging the said notification. In addition to that relief, the petitioners therein, pray for a direction to the respondents to regularize their services. W.P.No.23272 of 2011 is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner therein, in terms of the G.O. After the writ petitions were admitted, the University has withdrawn the notification dated 05.10.2010. Therefore, that part of the relief claimed in W.P.No.9042 of 2011 has become infructuous. The petitioners contend that they fulfill all the qualifications and conditions, stipulated in the G.O., and the respondents are not regularizing their services, even after 25 years of their service. On behalf of the respondents, the University filed counter- affidavit in W.P.No.9042 of 2011. They admit that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1986-87, as the case may be, and have completed the minimum length of service stipulated in the G.O. The denial of regularization is sought to be justified, on the ground that implementation of rule of reservation is coming in the way. Heard Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri M.Ratna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents. Almost a quarter century had elapsed, since the petitioners have joined the service of the University. They were appointed as NMRs and not on regular basis. The Government imposed ban on regular appointment of incumbents at the relevant point of time. A legislation was also brought about and it was challenged before the constitutional Courts. To tide over the situation, the Government issued the G.O., providing for regularization of daily wages and NMR employees appointed in the Government and other organizations run by it subject to certain conditions. They are as under: 1) “The persons appointed should possess the qualifications prescribed as per rules in force as on the date from which his/her services have to be regularized. 2) They should be within the age limit as on the date of appointment as NMR/Daily wage employee. 3) The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and back-log will be set-off against future vacancies. 4) Sponsoring of candidates from Employment Exchange is relaxed. 5) Absorption shall be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per work-load excluding the vacancies already lnotified to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission/District Selection Committee. 6) In the case of Workcharged Establishment, where there will be no clear vacancies, because of the fact that the expenditure on Workcharged is at a fixed percentage of P.S. charges and as soon as the work is over, the services of workcharged establishment will have to be terminated, they shall be adjusted in the other departments, District Offices provided there are clear vacancies of last Grade Service.” The respondents do not dispute that the petitioners fulfilled all the conditions. The only objection is about the difficulty in implementing condition No.3. The University is under the impression that a candidate whose services have to be regularized must fit into the roaster against the corresponding reserved vacancy. For instance, if the available vacancy is earmarked for BC-A, the regularization in terms of the G.O. would possible, if only the candidate belongs to that category and if he does not belong to that category, the relief cannot be extended. Such an interpretation or understanding, is contrary to condition No.3, extracted above. What it directs is that, the regularization of temporary or daily wage employees should not result in breach of rule of reservation and if the regularization results in disturbance of any roaster point, backlog vacancy must be set-off against the future vacancy. For example, if the available vacancy is earmarked for BC- A and the candidate, whose services are to be regularized, belongs to OC, the regularization can be done against the reserved vacancy, but the next available OC vacancy must be set- off for the BC-A. This exercise should have been completed long back. Substantial part of the service of the petitioners, if not the life, was spent in NMR or daily wage category. The matter cannot brook any further delay. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed, directing the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, in its letter and spirit and in all respects in favour of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:29.08.2011 GJ