IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND 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 : 2037 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23.01.2001 in WP NO : 17891 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.JAGAPATHI The Court made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Aggrieved by the order, dated 23.01.2001 made in WP No.17891 of 1999 by a learned Single Judge of this court allowing the writ petition and directing the appellants herein to regularize the services of the respondents herein as and when they complete ﬁve years of service from the date of their initial appointment and to put them on the time scale of pay from 1.1.2001, the present Writ Appeal is ﬁled by the Government - respondents in the writ petition. The respondents herein, it appears, were appointed on consolidated basis. Such of those temporary employees ﬁled W.P. No. 2386 and 6483 of 1994 claiming regularization, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 30.1.1995 directed the University to prepare a scheme for their absorption within six months. The University has regularized the services of some of the temporary employees who have completed ﬁve years of service as on 25.11.1993 and sent a proposal to the Government for absorption of the respondents herein. In the meanwhile, the respondents ﬁled the present Writ Petition, wherein an order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Government to pass appropriate orders on the proposals sent by the University. Pursuant thereto, the Government issued GO Rt. No. 1141 Higher Education (UE/1-1) Department dated 9.11.1999 rejecting the proposal inasmuch as there were no sanctioned posts for regularization of the services of the respondents herein. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No. 7175 of 1997 and Batch, the learned Single Judge has held the Act 27 of 1998 to be illegal and unconstitutional. Following the order dated 8.12.2000 made in WP No. 7175 of 1997 and Batch, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents therein to regularize the services of such of those employees who were appointed prior to 25.11.1993 and continued as on the cut oﬀ date. In terms of the said judgment, the learned Single Judge struck down GO Ms. No. 1141 dated 9.11.1999 also, holding that the said G.O. is per se illegal and consequently allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeal is preferred. As can be seen from the impugned order, the learned Single Judge relying on the earlier judgment of this court, issued mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the respondents herein as and when they complete ﬁve years of service from the date of their initial appointment, apart from granting other incidental beneﬁts. Having regard to these facts, we modify the impugned passed by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the appellants herein (Respondents in the writ petition) to consider regularization of services of the respondents herein (Writ Petitioners) as and when they complete ﬁve years of service from the date of their initial appointment, subject to the fulfillment of other conditions. With this direction, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan July 22, 2008 MAS. ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA { }