HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1423 OF 2003 DATED: 06.08.2009 BETWEEN: State of A.P. rep.by its Secretary to govt. .. Appellant And M.V.Subba Rao and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1423 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Finance and Planning Department, filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2000 in W.P.No.31170 of 1997. By the said order, the learned Single Judge accepted the plea of the writ petitioners, respondents 1 to 7 in the present appeal, for regularization of their services as Work Inspectors from the date of their joining service. The writ petitioners sought consideration of their cases for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (F.W.P.C.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994. It was their case that they were appointed on adhoc basis as Work Inspectors and that they had earlier approached this Court by way of W.P.No.8534 of 1997 seeking a direction to regularize their services in the said capacity. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 29.08.1997, directing the respondents therein to consider their cases for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. However, the authorities rejected the request of the writ petitioners on the ground that they had not completed five years of continuous service as on 25.11.1993 and that there were no sanctioned posts. The writ petitioners challenged the proceedings in Rc.No.A1/881/88 dated 27.10.1997 embodying the aforesaid rejection. The learned Single Judge, having placed reliance on the earlier judgments passed by this Court on the issue of regularization of services of persons who had completed five years of service, held that it was not open to the authorities to raise the plea that the writ petitioners had not completed the requisite five years of service by the date stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212. With regard to the ground of rejection as to the non-existence of sanctioned posts, the learned Single Judge held that such requirement was not pressed into service in the case of others whose services were regularized and therefore, the entitlement of persons, who are otherwise eligible and deserving as per G.O.Ms.No.212, could not be rejected on such a ground. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the appointment of the writ petitioners though on adhoc basis was not irregular and that they were continued in service for a long period of time. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that similarly situated persons had been accommodated and their services had been regularized pursuant to the orders of this Court in other cases and therefore, there was no reason as to why the petitioners alone should be discriminated against. The learned Single Judge observed that the writ petitioners had been continued in service for the last more than eight years prior to the passing of the order in the writ petition, which itself demonstrated that their continuance in service was necessary. The learned Single Judge accordingly held that there was no legal impediment to the regularization of the services of the petitioners and allowed the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing for the appellant – State, contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was not sustainable on facts; that there were no sanctioned posts and that it was not possible for the State to regularize the services of the writ petitioners. Per contra, Sri A.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that his clients were still continuing in service and that it was not open to the State to reject their cases for regularization of service. He pointed out that this Court has been passing orders with regard to regularization of services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 is an ameliorative measure providing for regularization of services of adhoc/casual employees who have been continued in service for five years or more. It sought to alleviate the plight of such persons so as to guarantee their employment status instead of leaving it to the whims and fancies of the State Authorities. It is not in dispute that the respondents herein, though adhoc employees, were not irregularly appointed. That being so, so far as regularization of their employment is concerned, we find no reason as to why they should be left out of the protective umbrella and the benefits afforded by the afore stated G.O. Similarly situated persons, who obtained orders from this Court with regard to the regularization of their services under the said G.O., have been regularized. It is not open to the State to pick and choose or harp upon the ground that there are no sanctioned posts whenever it suits its purpose. We therefore find no defect or irregularity in the order under appeal warranting interference of this Court. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The State shall consider the cases of the respondents/writ petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of and in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No order as to costs. ______________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J Dated:06.08.2009 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1423 OF 2003 DATED: 06.08.2009