HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO W.P.No. 36148 of 1998 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the authorities (respondents) in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and offends Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to compel the respondents to regularize his services from an appropriate date and grant all consequential benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Scavenger on 01-07-1990 at Lateefia Arabic College, Moghulpura, Hyderabad, with a salary of Rs.261/-, and thereafter he was drawing the salary of Rs.350/- per month. The Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.126, Education, dated 26-06-1992, ratifying the action of the aided colleges in appointing contingent staff and directed them to admit the contingent staff into grant-in-aid posts. The college management submitted necessary proposals to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education seeking regularization of the services of the contingent staff as per G.O.Ms.No.226, Education dated 22-06-1992. One Mr. Yaseen Shareef, who is similarly placed like the petitioner, filed W.P.No.8007 of 1997 seeking regularization of his services and this Court passed interim orders on 29-04-1997 in W.P.M.P.No.9765 of 1997 directing the respondents for paying minimum wage scale of class IV employees to the petitioner thereunder, and the authorities issued proceedings dated 11-03-1998 regularizing his services. As the petitioner is similarly placed like the said Yaseen Shareef and working in the same college, he is also entitled for regularization of his services as Scavenger or in any class IV post. It is further averred that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994, directing regularization of the services of Class IV employees and this Court, while considering the said G.O., held that the stipulation of five years condition in the said G.O. has to be given effect on completion of five years of service and the employees, who have completed five years of services, are eligible for regularization, and the same view was confirmed by the Supreme Court of India, and therefore, in view of the above legal position, the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his services. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter affidavit, inter alia, alleging that there are no valid or substantial grounds for grant of any relief as prayed for. It is further submitted that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.317, Education (J) Department, dated 06-06-1984 have imposed ban on recruitment of full time contingent employees in private aided colleges w.e.f. 01-04-1984 and the petitioner was appointed in the third respondent- college during the ban period on 01-07-1990 and therefore, his appointment is irregular. It is also further stated that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning Department, dated 22-04-1994 issued orders for regularization and absorption of daily wage/NMR or consolidated pay workers, on the conditions prescribed thereunder and the petitioner does not satisfy the condition of having put in five years service as on 25-11-1993. Therefore, his prayer for regularization of services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning Department, dated 22- 04-1994 cannot be considered. Both the counsel advanced arguments basing on the pleadings. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner joined in service as Scavenger on 01-07-1990. It is also an admitted fact that this Court in W.P.No.8007 of 1997 issued directions to the Government to pay the time scale of pay to the petitioner thereunder, and pursuant to the said orders, the Director of Collegiate Education, through the proceedings dated 11-03-1998, addressed the Correspondent, Lateefia Arabic College, Hyderabad, to regularize the services of the petitioner thereunder. Therefore, while placing reliance on the aforesaid orders in W.P.No.8007 of 1997, it is appropriate to give a direction to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner if his case falls within the ambit of the relief granted in the said writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner if his case falls within the ambit of the relief granted in W.P.No.8007 of 1997. No order as to costs. ________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date:27-01-2012 YCR