IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 1241 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP No : 21102 OF 1997 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT(S) AND .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 1242 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 21102 OF 1997 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANTS AND .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SC FOR JNTU (K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.N.HEMENDRANATH REDDY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 627 of 2003 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 5019 OF 1995 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANTS AND .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SC FOR JNTU (K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.SRINIVAS The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) As all these Writ Appeals raise common questions of law and facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. Writ Appeals 1241 and 1242 of 2001 arise out of the common order dated 14.06.2001 made in WP No. 21102 and 20927 of 1997 respectively while Writ Appeal No.627 of 2003 arises out of the order dated 13.3.2003 made in WP No. 5019 of 1995. It is case of the writ petitioners – respondents in these Appeals that though they were appointed as Teaching Assistants/Academic Assistants, in the year 1988 and 1990 and though they have been working on consolidated pay since then, their services were not regularized in terms of GO Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994, whereby the authorities of the Institutions and establishments under the control of State Government, Local Bodies, Corporations owned and controlled by the State Government, were directed to regularize the services of the temporary employees who worked continuously for a minimum period of ﬁve years. Therefore, the respondents ﬁled the above writ petitions. It is case of the appellants herein – respondents in the writ petitions that the duties of the respondents herein, who were appointed as Teaching Assistants/Academic Assistants is to help the teaching staﬀ in conducting practical classes and other academic maters, which cannot be equated to that of the Lecturers and thus issued Memo dated 17.6.1997 rejecting their claim of regularization. It is further their case that the respondents cannot claim for regularization of their services on the strength of GO Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994, inasmuch as it is applicable only to N.M.Rs./daily wage workers but not to the post of Academic Assistants. On extensive consideration of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, a learned Single Judge of this court, while allowing the WP Nos. 20927 and 21102 of 1997, directed the appellants herein to regularize the services of the respondents as Lecturers in Mechanical Engineering and Civil Engineering and while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 5019 of 1995, a learned Single Judge of this court directed the appellants herein to consider the case of the respondents for regularization of their services in the cadre of Lecturers in the University College. Aggrieved by the above orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeals are ﬁled inter alia contending that since the respondents herein were neither appointed on ad hoc basis against available vacancies nor they have undergone selection process laid down by the relevant recruitment rules, their services cannot be regularized and, therefore, their appointment can be made only following the recruitment process prescribed under the Act and Rules and on this score also, they are not entitled for regularization of services. As contended before the learned Single Judge, it is also contended before this court, by the learned counsel for the appellants, that since the respondents herein did not come up for selection in respect of the vacancies notiﬁed in 1998 and 2000, as such, their services cannot be regularized. Placing reliance on the decision Dr. Meera Massey Vs. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra (1998) 3 S.C.C. 88, the learned Single Judge observed that the Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the direction given by the High Court for regularization of the services of the employees, cannot be disturbed by treating the decision as a precedent. The learned Single Judge on a scrutiny of plethora of decisions, passed the impugned order in WP Nos.20927 and 21102 of 1997 directing the appellants herein to regularize the services of the respondents (Writ Petitioners in WP Nos.20927 and 21102 of 1997) as Lecturers. Admittedly, the writ petitioners have been working on the posts held by them for quite a long period. Having regard to these facts, we are of the opinion that though a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the appellants herein to regularize their services, but in view of the fact that the writ petitioners are working in the University for a long period, their cases deserve sympathetic consideration for regularization of their services. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the appellants herein to consider the cases of the respondents (Writ Petitioners in both the writ petitions) sympathetically for regularization of their services in the cadre of Lecturer in the University – College, as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the order, dated 14.06.2001, passed in WP Nos. 20927 and 21102 of 1997 is modiﬁed, as stated above, and the Writ Appeal Nos. 1241 and 1242 of 2001 are disposed of. The order, dated 13.3.2003, passed in WP No.5019 of 1995 is conﬁrmed and the Writ Appeal No. 627 of 2003 is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan July 28, 2008 MAS. ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA { }