3 The Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar W.P.No. 4259 of 2002 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning for the first respondent and Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or a direction to regularize the services of the petitioners in the posts in which they are working in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated:22.4.1994. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the second petitioner has been appointed temporarily on 25-10-1990 as NMR to the post of Attendar in the office of the fourth respondent and the first petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as a sweeper on NMR Basis on 18-01-1992 in the office of the third respondent and since then they have been continuously working temporaily and the authorities i.e., respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not regularize their appointments, though they have put in required length of service in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 212 referred to supra. 4. On the other hand the stand of the respondents is that according to the terms of G.O.Ms.No. 212 the petitioners are not eligible for regularization as they have not completed the minimum service of five years and continuing on 25-11-1993 and since they have not completed the five years of service as required by the above Governmental order, they are not eligible for regularization. The very dates of appointment of the petitioners would show that they did not satisfy the requirement of completion of five years as on 25-11-1993 stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212. Hence in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Principal Secretary, MA & UD, Secretariat Hyderabad v. The Registrar, APAT, Hyderabad,[1] it follows that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners however relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. M.L.Kesari[2] and a decision of this Court in Kodali Raju v APSRTC[3]. It may be noted that a perusal of the said two judgments would show that they are totally distinguishable on facts. The regularization claimed by the petitioners is governed by the terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 referred to supra. This court in the case of Principal Secretary, MA & UD (1 supra) held that regularization cannot be made unless the requirement of five years of service as on cut-off date i.e., 25-11-1993 is complied with. In fact, the Division Bench rendered its judgment by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. Manula Bhashini v. MD, A.P.Women’s Coop. Finance Corporation Ltd.[4], which is against the petitioner. In the above circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled for regularization. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 6. It shall however be open for the petitioners to make a representation to the concerned authorities for appointing them to a suitable post and the authorities may consider their representation as per Rules. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. August 8, 2011. *BVS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Monday, August 08, 2011 Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar W.P.No. 4259 of 2002 Between: Smt. S. Aruna and another ..Petitioners and The Govt. of AP and others …Respondents [1] W.P.No. 25961 of 2001 dt.19.08.2009. [2] 2010 (9) SCC 247 [3] 2011 (1) ALD 234 [4] 2009 (8) SCC 431