THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.19774 OF 1999 DATED 12-10-2009 Between: A.Dharma Reddy and another …Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By Its Secretary, Education Department and Three others …Respondents The Court made the following ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar): The two petitioners herein are seeking benefit of regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23.08.1991. It is not in dispute that the services of both the petitioners were regularised with effect from 28.12.1998 and 15.09.1998 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were eligible and applied under G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23.08.1991, however by the time their applications were processed and actual orders of regularisation were issued, the G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23.08.1991 though kept in abeyance, was superseded by further G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners were eligible and had applied under G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23.08.1991, they are entitled to the benefit of the said G.O and their regularisation orders issued under G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 in fact must restore them the benefit of earlier service as counted under G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23.08.1991. We are afraid such contention is not tenable for the reason that on the date of consideration of the petitioners’ case, G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23.08.1991 was no more in force and the only scheme, which was operative, was G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997. The case of the petitioners has been considered under the said latter scheme and orders for regularisation have already been issued. Petitioners, therefore, cannot seek a retrospective regularisation merely on the basis of the date on which they have applied, especially in view of the fact that the said scheme under G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23.08.1991 had already elapsed and was not in force at all. Writ petition, therefore, is devoid of any merit, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ V. ESWARAIAH,J Dated 12th October, 2009 _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J vrn