IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6156 of 2009 Between: Smt.Hazara Bee W/o.Late Daba Saheb in the O/o.Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records Krishna at Machilipatnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of AP., rep.by its Secretary Revenue (SS.II) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records Hyderabad 3 The Assistant Director , Survey and Land Records Machilipatnam, Krishna District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner by way of conversion into regular post either Attender or Sweeper on regular pay scale despite proceedings of the respondent no.2 dated 27.2.1996 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant with all consequential benefits by setting aside the order passed by Hon`ble AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA.No.7542 of 2003 dated 1.12.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner by way of conversion into regular post either Attender or Sweeper, despite the proposal dated 27.02.1996 of the second respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the order dated 01.12.2008 passed in O.A.No.7542 of 2003 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner was originally appointed as Sweeper-cum- Water Woman on temporary basis on 27.07.1971 in the Office of the third respondent and her pay was fixed @ Rs.40/-per month. Subsequently, her pay was re-fixed @ Rs.140/- along with D.A. with effect from 01.05.1975. She states that the third respondent vide his letter dated 01.11.1994 requested the second respondent for conversion of full time contingent into regular Government post in the time scale of Rs.1375-2375 in the Last Grade Services. Consequently, the second respondent sent a proposal vide letter dated 27.02.1996 to the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically, as a special case, by regularizing her services in a sanctioned post of Attender by relaxing the relevant Rules, if necessary, but no orders have been passed thereon. Hence, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7542 of 2003 before the Tribunal seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing her services in the post of either Attender or Sweeper, but the same was dismissed on the ground that in the District Survey and Land Records Office, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, there is no sanctioned post of Sweeper-cum- Waterman and that she does not have requisite qualifications for the post of Attender. Aggrieved by the same, she filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the second respondent sent a proposal vide letter dated 27.02.1996 to the first respondent mentioning the eligibility of the petitioner for conversion into regular post in the Last Grade Services as per G.O.Ms.Nos.9 and 259, dated 08.01.1981 and 18.06.1993 respectively, but the same has not been considered. He further contended that the petitioner has been working as Sweeper-cum- Water Woman since 1971, and she fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the above said G.Os, and therefore, she is entitled to regularization of her services by converting her into a regular post. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in BHAGWATI PRASAD v. DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION[1], wherein it was held as under: “The main controversy centres round the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as to entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. The indisputable facts are that the petitioners were appointed between the period 1983 and 1986 ever since, they have been working and have gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached to the posts held by them. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. In our view, three years’ experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the respondent, in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation.” 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II submitted that if the petitioner files a representation to the authorities concerned, the same would be considered. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader, without going into the further merits of the matter, we deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the proposal sent by the second respondent vide letter dated 27.02.1996, by treating it as the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMAD, J 7th APRIL, 2009. __________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J sj [1] (1990) 1 SCC 361