THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W P No.9471 of 2010 N. Vimalamma v. The Registrar General, High Court of A.P. Hyd.. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W P No.9471 of 2010 Oral Order: (Per Sri GM, J) This writ petition has been filed challenging in-action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-4-1994 and consequently seeks direction to regularize her services in the Last Grade Service in time scale with retrospective effect from 25-11-1993. According to the petitioner she has been appointed as part time masalchi in the court of Munsiff Magistrate, Pakala on 6-4-1987 on the monthly consolidated wage of Rs.75/- by the respondent no.2 and since then she has been continuing in the said post and she is now drawing a consolidated amount of Rs.2060/- per month. It is stated that the then District Judge, Chittoor regularised the services of the 20 contingent employees, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.231 dated 1-5-1999, and thereafter the services of the petitioner along with other six contingent employees were also regularised by proceedings date 10- 6-1999, and again the services of three contingent employees were regularised thus in all the services of 29 part time/full time contingent employees who have completed five years of service by 25-11-1993 were regularised and they were converted as Attenders and posted to several regular vacancies directly. Since the clearance from the Government has not been obtained as required under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-4-1994 and G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23-7-1997 before such regularization and absorption, the pay bills were not honoured by Treasurer. It is seen from the record that the High Court issued circular dated 6-1-2004 requesting the concerned District Judges to furnish details of part time masalchi/ full time masalchi, and their educational qualifications and that in pursuance of that circular official Memo in Dis. No.1082 dated 9-2-2004 was issued calling for the educational qualifications and according to the information furnished, the petitioner was possessing V class qualification, therefore she was not qualified to be appointed as Class IV employee, hence, her case was not recommended. Since the petitioner has not passed VII class at the time of appointment in the year 1987 and she passed VII class in the year 2005, as per G.O.Ms.No.212 full time contingent employees who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years continuing as on 25-11-1993 be regularised by the appointing authorities subject to fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in the said G.O. G.O.(P) No.112, dated 23-7-1997 is relating to part time contingent employees, and as per the said G.O. the part time contingent employees who worked continuously as part time workers for a minimum period of ten years and continuing as such as on 25-11-1993 are liable to be regularised subject to the conditions laid down therein. In STATE OF KARNATAKA v. L. KESARI ( (2010 (1) Decisions Today ( SC ) 358 ) the Supreme Court held as follows : “ The object behind the direction in para 53 of Umadevi case reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 ) is two fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 ( the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure if the initial appointment is not illegal even if irregular.” As per the circular of the High Court dated 6-1-2004, the candidates who have possessed 5/10/15 years of service as full time and part time contingent employees must have passed VII class on the date of circular i.e. 6-1- 2004 for consideration for regularization and appointment as attender by direct recruitment without issuing any notification and it is one time arrangement. The petitioner being part time masalchi has qualified V class as on the date of circular i.e. 6-1-2004 and later she passed VII in the year 2005, hence her case was not considered for regularization of her services. In the circumstances, we do not see any ground to entertain the writ petition, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. ______ GM, J ______ GC, J 11-8-2010-KK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W P No.9471 of 2010 11-8-2010