THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.436 of 2005 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 24-01-2005, rendered by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that in view of the orders passed by this Court and in the absence of any determination on either way in regard to the orders of termination, it has to be held that the same cannot be reopened nor would enable the petitioner to seek any reinstatement back into the service with continuity of service on the basis of earlier appointment. The case of the appellant/petitioner, in brief, is that initially he was appointed as an Analyst Grade-II along with 17 others vide Proceedings dated 21.02.1989 and he was posted at Rajahmundry as per the Proceedings dated 25.03.1985 on completion of two weeks training, he joined duty on 30.03.1989. While so the petitioner got a seat in M.Tech in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad which was recommended by the Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Rajahmundry as per the proceedings dated 17.01.1991. Since no prior sanction was granted by the authorities, the petitioner sought leave which was sanctioned enabling him to attend the classes from 13.02.1991 to 07.03.1991. Subsequently, again the petitioner joined duty on 08.03.1991 and continued till 01.04.1991. The petitioner had filed representation to the second respondent to relieve him since he is missing the classes and he may loose the seat also. Accordingly, the second respondent issued relieve proceedings dated 10.07.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the course at Hyderabad and successfully completed the same by obtaining 3rd rank from the University and later on he joined once again by reporting to duty on 20.04.1992. However, the respondents have issued a show cause notice on 15.04.1992 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why his services should not be terminated for un-authorized absence. The petitioner has pointed out all the circumstances in his explanation, stating that the said absence cannot be treated as un-authorized and to drop the proceedings. However, without considering the same, the petitioner’s services were terminated vide proceedings 23.07.1992 with effect from 16.03.1993. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition No.11089 of 1992 which was disposed of as per the orders dated 28.06.1995, directing the authorities to consider his case on the basis of the qualifications acquired and also taking into consideration the petitioner is a physically handicapped. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted a representation and whereupon the first respondent as per the proceedings dated 01.11.1995 directed the Board to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement. Inspite of the same, the petitioner’s case is remained un-considered. Hence, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No.19656 of 1996 which was disposed of as per the orders dated 26.11.1996, once again directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s case in the vacancies of Analyst Grade-II which are being filled and the process has to be completed within 10 weeks. Thereafter, the respondents have issued proceedings dated 01.04.1997 appointing the petitioner as temporarily in the post of Analyst Grade-II and the petitioner joined duty on 15.04.1997 at the Regional Office, Nizamabad. Thereafter, the petitioner had made several representations including the one dated 05.05.1998 to regularize his services from the date of initial appointment and not to treat as a fresh appointment. All these representations have remained un-considered. The appellant filed W.P.No.16573 of 1999 seeking to issue a writ of mandus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent authority in appointing the petitioner as Analyst Grade-II as a fresh appointment contrary to the 1st respondent proceedings, dated 01-11-1995 and contrary to the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.19656 of 1996 and W.P.No.11039 of 1992 as illegal and arbitrary. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant was already permitted to proceed with leave and ultimately, the leave was rejected and the period, during which he proceeded on leave for undergoing higher studies, was treated as unauthorized absence and that period was not regularized. He further contended that the appellant has to be regularized from 1992 to 1997 since there is no mistake on the part of the appellant and that the authorities have already permitted him to proceed with leave and also to complete higher studies and he joined duty after completing the course and, therefore, the said period has to be regularized. Further, he also placed the order passed by the Government, dated 01-11-1995, wherein the Government decided to reinstate the appellant into service. There is no representation on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel and none appeared on several occasion i.e., on 28-09-2011, 29-09-2011, 10-10-2011 and 11-10-2011 and today neither the learned Standing Counsel nor the learned Government Pleader appears. In the instant case, the appellant was terminated from service as the Government refused to grant leave and when the Government itself has directed for reinstatement of the appellant vide proceedings, dated 01-11-1995, the learned Single Judge ought to have ordered for reinstatement instead of dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside in view of the orders passed by the Government on 01-11-1995. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order, dated 24-01-2005, passed in W.P.No.16573 of 1999 and that the appellant is entitled to all benefits except monetary benefit. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date 12-10-2011 Prv