HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18253 OF 2000 ORDER: The Writ Petition was initially filed questioning the Memo No.3488/C-II-1/2000-3 dated 17-07-2000, communicated vide proceedings of respondent No.2, the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, dated 18-08-2000, and consequential proceedings of the management of respondent No.3, Noble College, terminating the services of the petitioner as Assistant Professor. While admitting the writ petition, interim suspension as prayed for was granted for a limited period. However, subsequently by an order dated 13-12-2000, petitioner was directed to be continued in service during pendency of the writ petition. In the meanwhile, the case of the petitioner was recommended for regular absorption. However services of the petitioner were ratified by the Government, respondent No.1, vide Memo No.SP5606/ CE.II.1/2000-11 dated 17-11-2004 and while implementing the Government Memo dated 17-11-2004, respondent No.2 appointed the petitioner as Physical Director against second vacant aided post prospectively with effective from 05-01-2005. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed into respondent No.3 College as a Lecturer in Physical Education with effect from 26-05-1988 pursuant to the selection made by Five-Men Committee as per G.O. Ms. No.127, Education, dated 07-06-1993. On 31-01-1994, he was appointed by transfer as Assistant Physical Director through the proceedings of respondent No.3 and he assumed charge as Assistant Physical Director with effect from 01-02-1994 and the College sought for approval of his appointment by letter dated 08- 02-1994 and the same was acknowledged by respondent No.3 on 11- 02-1994. However, respondent No.2 sought for clarification of the appointment of the petitioner and directed to submit the proposals in the prescribed form and the same was complied with. However, on 13-06-1996, the proposals sent by respondent No.3 were rejected on the ground that prior permission of the Commissioner for promotion of one P.W. Bhaskara Rao as Physical Director was not obtained, hence approval of the petitioner was also rejected. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner filed W.P. No.15309 of 2006 and the same was disposed of on 29-06-1999 directing respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner for approval of his appointment in the light of its (respondent No.2) decision in similarly circumstanced teachers as reflected in the proceedings dated 06-04-1996. Thus, the Government vide Memo No.1477/CE.II-1/93-5 dated 30-03-1996 approved the appointment of four candidates. However, appointment of the petitioner was not approved, therefore he had to file another writ petition in W.P. No.31893 of 1997 and the said writ petition was also allowed on 26- 09-2003 directing the authorities concerned to treat the approval given by the Government in Memo dated 30-03-1996 in the aided vacancy with effect from 19-07-1993. Appeal preferred against the same by the Government in W.A. No.1850 of 2004 was dismissed. Respondent No.3 again sought for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as per the orders of this Court in the above writ petition (W.P. No.31893 of 1997) as Assistant Physical Director and when the same was not considered, petitioner had to file C.C. No.794 of 2000 before this Court. However, respondent No.1 issued the impugned proceedings dated 17-07-2000 rejecting the case of the petitioner for approval of his appointment as Assistant Physical Director. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the case of the petitioner was also considered and his services were ratified from 05-01-2005. It is grievance of the petitioner that he is entitled for regular absorption from the date of his initial appointment on part with others like one D. Charles of the same college; though his case was not considered earlier on the ground of initial appointment was not through a properly constituted selection committee. 3. Hence, it is apt to notice that though the selection was initially not properly done while appointing one D. Charles and he was given exemption and his services were regularized from the date of his initial appointment. However, case of the petitioner was considered from the date of issuance of the proceedings of respondent No.2 dated 05-01- 2005 in spite of the fact that the Government has ratified his appointment as Physical Director in the second vacant aided post on 17-11-2004. 4. The facts are not in dispute. It appears, the post was upgraded with effect from 16-11-1984 in pursuance of G.O. Ms. No.126 dated 16-05-1996 as clarified in G.O. Ms. No.136 dated 06-04-1995. 5. The learned Government Pleader produced two letters bearing Lr.Rc.No.1985/PC4-1/96 dated 18-09-1999 and Lr.Rc.No.2302/Admn. VI-1/2000 dated 18-06-2001 to show that even as on 31-01-1994, two vacancies of physical Director were available. 6. In view of the fact that appointment of D. Charles, who was working in the very same College and whose initial appointment was also not in accordance with the selection process, as required under the law, was ratified and his services were regularized form the date of his initial appointment. Thus, the petitioner is also entitled for the same treatment. Therefore, the impugned order passed on 05-01- 2005 approving the appointment of the petitioner as Physical Director as against the second vacant aided post with prospective effect is illegal and arbitrary when the post was available as on 31-01-1994 and it was upgraded with retrospective effect from 16-11-1984, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment on 31-01-1994. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J August 11, 2010. PV