IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3112 of 2000 Between: 1 Govt.of India Rep.by its Secretary,Ministry of Defence New Delhi. 2 The Director General Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence New Delhi. 3 The Director, Defence Electronics Research Laboratory Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.Subhadra W/o.Balraj R/o.H.No.10-65,Prashanthnagar Leninnagar Meerpet,R.R.Dist. 2 T.Ramulamma W/o.Chandraiah R/o.H.No.18-8-224/5/445,Rajanarasimha Colony Hyderabad 3 G.Mallamma W/o.Rajaiah R/o.H.No.18-9-263,Chandrayanagutta Hyderabad 4 P.Anjaiah S/o.Ellaiah R/o.H.No.18-3-184,Kandikal Gate Boiguda Hyderabad. 5 Susheela W/o.Balaiah R/o.H.No.439,Rajanarasimha Colony Hydedrabad. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in O.A.No.1079/98 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and quash the order dated 9-9-99 passed in the said O.A. and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.3112 of 2000 O R D E R: (per HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the Order dated 9-9-1999 passed in O.A.No.1079 of 1998 on the ﬁle of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. Respondents herein ﬁled the said O.A. seeking to declare the Proceedings dated 6-2-1998 issued by the 3rd petitioner herein in rejecting their claim for regularization as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the petitioners herein to regularize their services in the post of Sweeper with eﬀect from the dates they have completed three years of service with all consequential beneﬁts. It was the case of the applicants (respondents herein) that though they have been working as Sweepers in the Defence Electronics Research Laboratory, Hyderabad for the last more than 10 years, their services have not been regularized. They earlier ﬁled O.A.No.453 of 1995 along with others, which was disposed of by an Order dated 13-6-1997 directing them to submit a representation seeking regularization. Thereafter, they made a representation, but by the Proceedings dated 6-2-1998 it was rejected on the ground that they were engaged in various types of jobs depending on the requirements, which were not regular in nature, apart from the fact that they have not fulﬁlled the requisite educational qualiﬁcations. The case of the petitioners herein before the Tribunal was that the applicants did not possess the requisite qualiﬁcations and they were not recruited through Employment Exchange, which is essential, since the 3rd respondent’s Oﬃce was a Defence establishment. That apart, the applicants did not fit into the scheme framed by the Central Government. The Tribunal, after considering the rival claims, allowed the O.A. and quashed the Proceedings impugned therein and directed the petitioners herein to regularize the services of the respondents herein as Sweepers in accordance with the scheme and/or guidelines issued from time to time. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition is ﬁled by the Government of India and two others. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that since the applicants-respondents have not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and some of them do not possess the requisite educational qualiﬁcations and also do not ﬁt into the scheme dated 7-6-1988, their services were not regularized. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.15186 of 1999, dated 21-12-1999, wherein the direction given by the Tribunal to decide the perennial nature of work performed by the workmen and assess whether that work requires posts in Group-D cadre was set aside and the employer was directed that if, in future, any project is entrusted to them and if the services of the workmen are required, they may be engaged in service on priority basis before going to open market. Under those circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the impugned Order of the Tribunal is illegal and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned Order and contended that the respondents are entitled for regularization of their services since they have been working for the last several years in Defence Electronics Research Laboratory, Hyderabad. We have given our earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and gone through the Order of the Tribunal and other material made available on record, including the instructions issued by Government of India from time to time. After going through various communications, the Tribunal found that the earlier stipulation with regard to sponsorship through Employment Exchange for the purpose of regularization in case of casual labour, who were recruited prior to 7-6-1988, was dispensed with as one-time measure and the casual workers who were in service as on the date of issue of the instructions dated 7-6-1988, may be considered for regular appointment in Group ‘D’ posts, even if they were recruited otherwise than through Employment Exchange, since the casual employees belong to the economically weaker sections of the society. The Tribunal also held that the applicants having been in service on casual basis for a long time, they deserve to be granted the beneﬁt of being regularized notwithstanding the conditions laid down in the Oﬃce Memorandum dated 8-4-1991 read with the Memo dated 7-6-1988. Regarding the educational qualiﬁcation, it was observed that the lack of minimum educational qualiﬁcation in case of casual workers for the purpose of regularization cannot be construed as disqualiﬁcation and there was no reason why the lack of the incumbent possessing such educational qualiﬁcation should be treated as a deterrent factor on his eligibility for regularization. Considering the overall circumstances, the Tribunal found that since the applicants have already been continuing as casual workers from the dates earlier than 7-6-1988 when the scheme was introduced, even if it is conceded that the scheme was to be treated as only a one-time measure, the applicants can still not be deprived of the beneﬁt accruing from the scheme and they are rightfully entitled to claim regularization on the basis of the terms and conditions mentioned in the O.M. dated 7-6- 1988 read with subsequent instructions dated 8-4-1991. Since the respondents herein were in service as on 7-6-1988, as a one-time measure, they are entitled to be considered for regularization as per the Scheme. The subsequent instructions do not help the petitioners to deny the claim of the respondents herein for regularization. The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.15186 of 1999 and batch, dated 21-12-1999 has no application to the facts of this case. In the said case, the question was that the Tribunal while disposing of the O.A. directed the respondent-organization to decide the perennial nature of work performed by the workmen and assess whether that work required posts in Group-D. Such a situation does not arise in this case. In this case, the Tribunal has followed the scheme framed by the Government dated 7-6-1988, which is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, and directed for regularization of the services of the applicants therein. Under the above circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that the Proceedings dated 6-2-1988 issued by the 3rd petitioner herein in rejecting the claim of the respondents herein for regularization deserves to be quashed. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the O.A. and directing the petitioners herein to regularize the services of the respondents/applicants in accordance with the scheme and/or guidelines. No grounds are made out to interfere with the well reasoned Order passed by the Tribunal, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) 24th July, 2008 _____________ (C.V. RAMULU,J) prk