THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8137 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner joined the services of the A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, respondent No.2 herein, as a Physical Education Teacher in the year 1988. His services were not regularized while he was in service. On its part, respondent No.2 forwarded a recommendation on 03.10.2006, to the Government seeking approval for regularization of the services of the petitioner. When no steps were taken thereon, he filed W.P.No.23707 of 2008. The writ petition was disposed of directing respondent No.1 to pass orders on the recommendation made by respondent No.2 on 03.10.2006 within four weeks. Stating to be in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 06.04.2010, through which respondent No.1 decided to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 31.10.2008 i.e. the date on which the petitioner retired from service and the orders in the writ petition were passed. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same, Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner rendered services as Physical Education Teacher almost for a period of 30 years in various institutions established by respondent No.2. He was entitled to be regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. It is was only in the year 2006 that respondent No.2 has chosen to forward the proposal for regularization of the services of the petitioner. Instances were also cited wherein the regularization of services was affected in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, with effect from the date on which the incumbent acquired the eligibility. The petitioner had to approach this Court at the fag end of his service. The writ petition was disposed of directing that necessary orders be passed on the recommendation made by respondent No.2. This Court is indeed surprised to note the contents of the impugned G.O. Respondent No.1 has directed that the services of the petitioner be regularized with effect from 31.10.2008 knowing fully well that he retired from service on that date. The only basis indicated for choosing that date is that this Court passed orders in W.P.No.23707 of 2008 on that day. It is only respondent No.1 who should know the purpose that would be served on account of the G.O. Serious attention ought to have been bestowed instead of passing the order in such a casual manner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and in the impugned G.O. is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to pass fresh orders as regards the regularization of the services of the petitioner. It is made clear that in case a futile exercise similar to the one under the impugned G.O. is undertaken, this Court would be left with no alternative but to express its view as to the functioning of the Officer concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:12.10.2011. kdl