HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.13352 of 2001 MONDAY, THE 9th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 Between: N.Ramesh Babu and another ….PETITIONER(S) and The Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Bldgs., hyderabadn and others …RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.13352 of 2001 ORDER: (PER SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) In this writ petition, the petitioners question the action of 4th respondent College in not allowing them to continue as part time Lecturers in Politics and Public Administration as illegal and arbitrary and also the cut off date prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.328 Education (CE- III) Department dated 15.10.1997. Heard the learned counsel on either side. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner was appointed as a part-time Lecturer in Politics and the 2nd petitioner was appointed as part-time Lecturer in Public Administration in the 4th respondent’s college on 07.11.1994 and 02.07.1999, respectively. As can be seen from G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 22.04.1994, the Government, keeping in view the judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2979 of 1992 dated 12.08.1992 and batch, decided that services of such persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years and are continuing as on 25.11.1993 be regularized by the appointing authorities subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. So, it is clear that they did not fulfill the required criteria of five years continuous service as on 25.11.1993 to seek regularization of their service. Further, the issue of cut off date as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.328 Education (CE-III) Department dated 15.10.1997 was dealt with and negatived by a Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27295 of 1998 and batch dated 09.11.2009 following the judgment of the Apex Court in A.MANJULA BHASHINI AND OTHERS VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P. WOMEN’S COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER[1]. In view thereof, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought and the writ petition is devoid of merits and hence is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 9th November 2009 CVRK [1] 2009(5) ALD 58 (SC)