THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.359 OF 2007 DATED NOVEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN A.Satyanarayana and others. … Petitioners And The Secretary, Department of B.C. Welfare, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and Others. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.359 OF 2007 O R D E R The petitioners, a Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Operator, a Librarian and a Sweeper-cum-watchman in the service of the Andhra Pradesh Study Circle for Backward Classes, Guntur, seek regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits. The Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned three Study Circles for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at Guntur, Warangal and Anantapur, under G.O.Ms.No.24, Backward Classes Welfare (P1) Department, dated 11.08.1994. The Guntur Study Circle was to cover the Andhra and Nagarjuna Universities area. Sanction was also accorded thereunder for creation of posts including, amongst others, those of a Librarian, a Junior Assistant-cum-Typist, Roneo Operator and a Watchman with regular scales of pay. Rules were framed for the management of these Study Circles and were titled ‘The Andhra Pradesh Study Circle for Backward Classes Rules, 1994’ (for short, ‘the Rules of 1994’). As per Rule 4 of the Rules of 1994, the Managing Committee of the Study Circle was authorized to recruit and fill up the posts sanctioned by the Government. Rules 4[c] and (d) are relevant and read as under: “4. Recruitment: [a] ……… [b] ……… [c] Recruitment to the posts other than the post of Director shall be made by the Managing Committee either (1) by direct recruitment through Employment Exchange of the district concerned or paper notification, (2) by promotion, (3) by deputation from any department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh or from any State Government undertaking or from any local body. [d] The selection shall be made by conducting written test or by viva-voce or by both, as considered by the Managing Committee.” However, without resorting to this methodology of recruitment, the Guntur Study Circle appointed the petitioners herein on contract basis. The first petitioner was initially appointed as a Roneo Operator on 27.10.1995. His post was thereafter converted to that of a Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Operator under proceedings dated 22.09.2006. The second petitioner was appointed as a Librarian-cum- Typist on 13.08.1995 and the third petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper-cum-Watchman on 28.07.1995. The appointments of the petitioners were approved by the Managing Committee of the Study Circle. Citing the cases of various employees identically situated whose services were regularized in the Study Circles, the petitioners sought similar relief. According to the petitioners, the Study Circles amended the Rules so as to permit regularization in service of those who had completed ten years of service. As they fulfill the said condition, they claimed the benefit of these amended rules. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents upon their representations in this regard, they approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in the first instance and thereafter, this Court. The Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur District, being the President of the Guntur Study Circle, filed a counter admitting that the petitioners engagement in service was duly approved by the Managing Committee of the Study Circle on various dates and that they were continuing in the said posts till date, owing to the failure in undertaking regular recruitment to the said posts in accordance with the Rules of 1994. It is further stated that though the petitioners completed ten years of service and sought regularization, it could not be done as their services were taken only on contract basis. No explanation however is forthcoming as to why the Study Circle did not resort to recruitment as per the prescribed procedure and as to why the petitioners, having been engaged on contract basis, were continued in that capacity throughout. It is further admitted in the counter that the petitioners, having acquired additional qualifications after their engagement in service, were fully qualified to hold the posts as on date. Their entitlement under G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994 was however disputed, as they were not even in service by the cut-off date prescribed therein, viz., 25.11.1993. It is stated that the cases of M.Subbarayudu, Attender; B.Subbarayudu, Attender; and M.Manuku, Watchman; cited by the petitioners were covered under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and therefore were not comparable to those of the petitioners. The case of J.Katamaiah, Accountant, was said to be covered by the instructions issued by the Secretary to the Government, B.C. Welfare Department, Andhra Pradesh, while that of M.Sampath Kumar, Roneo Operator, was said to have been considered pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WPMP No.10192 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.7969 of 2006. In their reply affidavit, the petitioners pointed out that their entry into the service of the Study Circle was approved by its Managing Committee. That being so, they contested the claim in the counter that their appointment was not as per the procedure. They further pointed out that they were appointed in the sanctioned posts covered by G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 11.08.1994 and contended that they could not be penalized for any irregularities on the part of the Study Circle in making appointments thereto. The petitioners asserted that the case of M.Sampath Kumar, Roneo Operator, was rejected under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 but was however considered pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7969 of 2006. They therefore claimed parity with the said individual and reiterated the request for regularization of their services on par with the other employees. In their additional affidavit, the petitioners stated that an error was committed while furnishing the dates of the initial appointment of petitioners 1 and 2 in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and sought to clarify the same. Reliance was placed on the counter filed by the Study Circle before the Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7596 of 2005 filed by petitioners 1 and 2, wherein it was admitted that the first petitioner joined in service on 27.10.1995 and the second petitioner joined in service on 13.08.1995. They further stated that they were entitled to be regularized in service even as per the direction of the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA V/s. UMADEVI[1]. Relevant to note, petitioners 1 and 2 secured an order of status quo in the above O.A. on 21.11.2005 which stood automatically vacated upon their withdrawal of the O.A. on 22.11.2006. Significantly, they were continued in service during the pendency of this writ petition in the absence of interim orders. It is relevant to note that by amendment of the Rules of 1994 a provision was made for regularizing the services of those candidates who had put in ten years of service in pre-examination training centers and who were thereafter absorbed in the Study Circles. This amendment effected on 27.03.1997 was approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 23.04.1997. The petitioners herein, however, would not be covered by the said amendment as they did not initially work in pre-examination training centers prior to their engagement in the Guntur Study Circle. Be that as it may, the above amended rule demonstrates that the Study Circles made provision for absorption on a regular basis of employees on the basis of the length of their service without reference to the method of their recruitment. Further, others who fulfilled the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 were also extended the benefit of regularization in service. In so far as the case of M.Sampath Kumar, Roneo Operator, is concerned, there is no dispute that his case was rejected under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. However, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7969 of 2006 he was given the benefit of regularization. Relevant to note, this Court taking into account the claim of M.Sampath Kumar that he was entitled for regularization with effect from the date of his initial appointment, directed the respondents in the writ petition to consider his case as per recruitment Rules. This order was passed on 06.06.2006. The Study Circle concerned immediately swung into action thereupon and issued proceedings dated 09.06.2006 regularizing the services of M.Sampath Kumar as a Roneo Operator. No explanation is forthcoming from the order dated 09.06.2006 as to how he was considered fit for regularization in service as per recruitment Rules after his case stood rejected under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. The petitioners, similarly situated in so far as their eligibility under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 is concerned, are not shown to be inferior to M.Sampath Kumar in any respect to claim the same relief. Relevant to note, the petitioners completed ten years of service free from the protection of Court orders. T h e status quo orders obtained by petitioners 1 and 2 for a period extending just over one year in O.A.No.7596 of 2005 were passed subsequent to their completion of a decade in service without protection of Court orders. That being so, the observations of the Supreme Court in UMADEVI would be applicable to them. Therein, the Supreme Court held that those who were irregularly appointed in duly sanctioned vacant posts and had continued to work for ten years or more without the intervention of orders of Courts or Tribunals would be entitled, as a one time measure, to regularization in service. The petitioners having been appointed on contract basis in duly sanctioned posts and having worked for ten years free from the protection of Court orders would therefore be entitled to the protection of this one time measure afforded by the Supreme Court in UMADEVI. In that view of the matter, the action of the respondents in continuing to treat the petitioners as contract employees notwithstanding their lengthy service stretching over a decade and a half, relying on their own failure to abide by the Rules, cannot be countenanced. There shall accordingly be a direction to the respondents to regularize the petitioners in service with effect from the date of their initial appointment. However, the petitioners would not be entitled to any arrears of monetary benefits arising from this retrospective regularization. The same shall only be given effect to for notional purposes prospectively and for pensionery benefits. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. --------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J ______NOVEMBER, 2010 PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.359 OF 2007 ______NOVEMBER, 2010 [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1