HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR W.P.No.6701 OF 2000 O R D E R: (Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regularization of his services as Lecturer in Political Science in the existing aided vacancy and to pay on par with the regular lecturers for the service rendered by him as Part-time Lecturer and to declare the condition imposed by the 1st respondent in Rc.No. 839-PC-II-1/99-2, dated 20.12.1999, entitling the 3rd respondent to draw the remuneration and pay the same only to those who were appointed up to March 1991 against the aided vacancies, as arbitrary and illegal. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Education and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Lecturer in Political Science Department, in the 3rd respondent college in the year 1992. 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. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in 1992 and so, it is clear that he did not fulfill the required criteria of five years continuous service as on 25.11.1993 to seek regularization of his service. Admittedly, the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.328 Education (CE-III) Department dated 15.10.1997 notifying the criteria for regularization of service. As per para 9(5) thereof, only those who 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 also continuing in service on the date of issue of those orders are eligible for regularization and so, it is clear that the petitioner is not eligible for regularization as sought. The Apex Court in A.MANJULA BHASHINI AND OTHERS VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P. WOMEN’S COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER[1] upheld the validity of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short `the 1994 Act') by Amendment Act Nos.3 and 27 of 1998, so also the cut off date as fixed for continuance of their service subject to the required period of service as on 25.11.1993. In fact, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the 1st respondent issued proceedings Rc. No. 1677/GCII-1/91, dated 31.07.1991 directing the Principals and Correspondents not to make any fresh appointment of part-time lecturers from the academic year 1991-92. It is stated that the appointment of the petitioner itself is against the instructions of the 1st respondent. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court and the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, since the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 20.12.1999 are in consonance with the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.Ms. No. 328, dated 15.10.1997 and the claim of the petitioner does not fit into the required criteria, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for and the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and hence, is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ------------------------- (V. ESWARAIAH, J) ----------------------------- (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) ----------------------------------- (VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR,J) 13th October 2009 ksld [1] 2009(5) ALD 58 (SC)