IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.1342 of 2002 Between: V.Srilakshmi ..... PETITIONER AND The Managing Director, A.P.Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd., Vengalaraonagar, Hyderabad and two others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.1342 of 2002 O R D E R: The petitioner questions the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularisation of her services on the ground that there are no sanctioned posts in the 1st respondent Corporation and she did not fulfil the conditions as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Matron on consolidated pay on 23.11.1989. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.20844/1997 seeking regularisation of her services and this Court by order dated 23.01.1998 disposed of the said writ petition along with other connected writ petitions, directing the respondents to verify whether the post held by the petitioner is regular, and if so, to regularise the petitioner on par with other employees of the same cadre. If the post is not regular post, then appropriate orders should be passed on the proposal sent by the other respondents. Pursuant to the said orders, the case of the petitioner and others was considered keeping in view of the amendment Act 2/1994 in Act 3/1998 and Act 27/1998 and according to which the individuals who have completed a minimum continuous service of five years on or before 25.11.1993 are only eligible for regularisation as against the sanctioned posts subject to fulfilment of certain other conditions. It is stated that if the petitioner appointed as Matron on 23.11.1989, she would not be completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993, but she would be completed five years of service by 23.11.1994 alone. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation of services, on the ground that she has not possessed continuous service of five years as on 25.11.1993 and as there was no sanctioned post in the Corporation. As the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of her services. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. L.Kesari[1] wherein the Supreme Court directed to consider for regularisation keeping in view of judgment in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi[2] but, however, it was held that if the requirements of para-3 of Uma Devi case are not fulfilled, the services of the petitioners therein need not be regularised. It is stated that if the employees who have completed 10 years of service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularisation in suitable lower posts. 4. I am of the opinion that the above said judgment has no application to the present facts of the case in view of the Act 2/1994 as amended by Act 3/1998 and Act 27/1998 framing a scheme in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. In fact, the direct judgment on the issue which arose from the State of Andhra Pradesh is in the case of A.Manjula Bhashini and ors. Vs. M.D.,A.P.Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited[3]. The Supreme Court held that the regularisation of services of temporary employees shall be subject to fulfilment of the conditions enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. As per the said G.O. unless the temporary employees complete five years of service as on 25.11.1993 and that there is a clear sanctioned vacancy, they are not entitled for regularisation of services. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for any regularisation. The impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court disposed of W.P.No.18821/2001, directing the respondent therein to continue the petitioner therein in service till a regular vacancy is available, and as and when regular vacancy arose, the petitioner therein shall be absorbed in such vacancy with all consequential benefits, as per law. 6. I have perused the said order. The impugned order therein rejecting the regularisation of services was not at all set aside. However, in view of the counter filed in the similar writ petition stating that the petitioner therein, as similar to the petitioner herein, presently drawing minimum time scale w.e.f.18.02.2009 as per G.O.Ms.No.11 Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (WP) Department dated 18.02.2009, the said direction was issued. 7. I am of the opinion that the scope of this writ petition is with regard to legality and validity of the impugned order. Therefore, I am not inclined to observe anything except deciding the issue in question. However, I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to entitlement of the petitioner to continue in service, in view of the counter filed by the respondent stating that presently the petitioner is drawing minimum time scale (Basic plus D.A.) in her post w.e.f.18.02.2009, as per G.O.Ms.No.11 of Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (WP) Department dated 18.02.2009. 8. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 21.10.2010 Dsr [1] 2010(1) Decisions Today (SC) 358 [2] 2006(4) SCC 1 [3] 2009(5) ALD 58 (SC)