THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1351 of 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per GM,J) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 27-12- 2004 passed in WP No.24635 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was appointed as a part-time Lecturer in the third respondent- College and joined in the service on 20-07-1998 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1645, Education, dated 28-08-1982. The petitioner’s appointment was on payment of Rs.20/- per hour. The case of the petitioner is that he has been discharging duties on par with the regular Lecturers and in view of his qualifications, he is entitled to be regularized as Lecturer from the date of his initial appointment. While so, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.302, Education Department, dated 23.08.1991 for the purpose of regularizing part-time Lecturers/Junior Lecturers working the in the private colleges. Pursuant thereto, the third respondent sent proposals to the second respondent in terms of the said G.O.No.302 for regularization of services of the petitioner. But no orders have been passed thereon. Subsequently, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 8-6-1994 for regularization of part-time Lecturers and in pursuance of which, services of several similarly situated Lecturers were regularized. Thereafter, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.362, Education Department, dated 7-10-1994 for regularization of part-time Lecturers and Junior Lecturers. Accordingly, the third respondent has sent proposals on 24-10-1995 to the Regional Joint Director, Guntur. Meanwhile, the first respondent issued orders on 11-1-1995 keeping G.O.Ms.No.362 in abeyance. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19059 of 1996 and this Court granted interim direction directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.302 within a period of eight weeks and to pay time scale of pay attached to the post held by him from August, 1996 itself. Since there was no compliance, the petitioner filed C.C.No.232 of 1997. Later, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15-10-1997 for regularization of similar part-time Lecturers and Junior Lecturers. Pursuant to the said G.O, the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 15-4-1998. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non-regularization of his services from 23-08-1991 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.302. Hence, the writ petition. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents-appellants contending that G.O.Ms.No.302 was no more in operation in view of subsequent order in G.O.Ms.No.362, Education, dated 7-10-1994 and G.O.Ms.No.328, Education, dated 15-10-1997 for regularization of services of part-time Lecturers. G.O.Ms.No.328 has already stood expired from 3-11-1999. Therefore, consideration of the case of the petitioner for regularization does not arise. The learned single Judge of this Court after analyzing the material available on record allowed the writ petition by directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioner itself is illegal and his services were regularized in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.328. He further contends that G.O.Ms.No.302 is superseded by G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15-10-1997 and that when the services of the writ petitioner were regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.328, the appellants ought not to have been directed to regularize the services of the writ petitioner in pursuance of the superceded G.O., which was not even in existence as on the date of passing of regularization orders. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that there are no grounds to interfere with the order impugned and the learned single Judge rightly passed the order after crystallizing the evidence available on record. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner as part-time Lecturer on 15-07-1988 was in pursuance of the notification issued by the third respondent and the petitioner joined to duty on 20-07-1988. It is also not in dispute as to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.302 Education, dated 23-08-1991 and subsequent GOs viz., G.O.Ms.166, dated 8-6-1994, G.O.Ms.No.362, dated 7-10-1994 and G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15-10-1997. Further, it is also not in dispute that in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.302, proposals were sent to second respondent for regularization of services of the petitioner. But, there is nothing on record to show as to whether the appellants have taken any action or not. It is also not known as to why the respondent-writ petitioner denied the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.302 while regularizing the services of similarly situated part-time Lecturers and Junior Lecturers. The findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are perfectly justified in this aspect. Now, the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the writ petitioner is entitled to regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment or the date of G.O.Ms.No.302, dated 23.8.1991. It is an admitted fact that after issuing G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15-101997, the services of the writ petitioner were regularized with effect from 15-4-1998. No doubt, the relief sought for in the writ petition is for regularization of services of the writ petitioner with effect from 23-08-1991 as per G.O.Ms.No.302, in pursuance of which the services of similarly situated persons were regularized. But, beyond the scope of the writ petition, the respondents ought not have been directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment. In view of the above circumstances, we deem it appropriate to modify the order of the learned single Judge to the following effect: “The appellants are directed to consider the case of the respondent-writ petitioner with effect from 23-08-1991 being the date of G.O.Ms.No.302 and in terms of the prayer in the writ petition, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” With the above modification, the writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J rkk Dated: 19-10-2011