HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.11834 of 1998 MONDAY, THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 Between: K. Narmada ….PETITIONER(S) and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Education Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 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.11834 of 1998 ORDER: (PER SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was working as part-time Lecturer in Botany in the 3rd respondent college, sought a direction by way of mandamus to declare the proceedings of 2nd respondent in Rc.No.3344/PC.III.1/97 dated 02.03.1998 and also the condition stipulated in para 9(5) of G.O.Ms.No.328 Education (CE.III) Department, dated 15.10.1997, in fixing a cut off date for counting the eligibility for regularization, as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the respondents to regularize her service as Lecturer in the 3rd respondent college with all consequential benefits. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as part-time Lecturer in Botany in the 3rd respondent college on 16.08.1989 on hourly basis and prior to that she worked as a Lecturer in a private college from August 1986 to August 1989 and that her appointment in the 3rd respondent college was in a grant-in-aid post. She passed M.Sc. in Botany with 60% marks. It is her contention that the 2nd respondent by proceedings Rc.No.3344/PC.III.1/97 dated 02.03.1998 informed that she is not eligible for regularization on the ground that she did not put in the service of 3 academic years as on 30.07.1991 or 5 academic years as on 25.11.1993 as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997. It is also her contention that since she has completed five years of service, she is eligible for regularization based on the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 22.04.1994. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as part-time Lecturer in the 3rd respondent college on 16.08.1989. 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 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2979 of 1992 dated 12.08.1992 and batch, decided that the 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. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has not fulfilled the required criteria of five years continuous service as on 25.11.1993 to seek regularization of her service. The petitioner also challenged the condition stipulated in para 9.5 of G.O.Ms.No.328 Education (CE-III) Department, dated 15.10.1997, wherein it is stated that for being eligible for regularization of service, a part-time Lecturer must have put in a service of 3 academic years as on 30.07.1991 or 5 academic years as on 25.11.1993 as the case may be and must also be continuing in service (emphasis supplied) on the date of issuance of these orders. It is evident from the above mandatory requirement that the petitioner does not fulfill the requirement of being in service as on the date of issuance of the said G.O.Ms.No.328 i.e. 15.10.1997. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 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 12th OCTOBER 2009 CVRK/KPR