IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Rev.W.P.M.P(SR).No.49704 of 2007 In W.P.No.9386 of 1997 AND W.P.No.9112 and Contempt Case No.361 of 2007 W.P.No.9112 of 2007 1 K.Yasodamma, w/o Venkatanarayana, DWACRA, Kalakada, Chittoor District. 2 T.Vijaya, d/o T.Sreenivasulu, DWACRA Nagalapuram, Chittoor District. 3 S.K.Seshagirija Kumari, c/o G.Sasidhar, DWACRA, Thottambedu, Chittoor District. 4 J.Nagaveni, w/o C.Ramana Reddy, DWACRA, Punganur, Chittoor District. 5 D.Balamma, c/o Sempengeian, DWACRA, Kalakada, Chittoor District. 6 K.Noorjahan, c/o Imam Saheb, DWACRA, Puthalapattu, Chittoor District. 7 T.Gnanamba, d/o Balaramanarayana, DWACRA, Yerravaripalem, Chittoor District. 8 K.Indumathi, w/o Adinarayana, DWACRA, Nimmanapalle, Chittoor District. 9 K.Vanisree, w/o Sreenivasulu, DWACRA, Chittoor, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by Commissioner, Rural Development, (Women Empowerment & Self Employment, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Commissioner, Finance (PC.III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Project Director, DRDA, DWAMA & DWACRA, Chittoor, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on per with the recommendations made by the 2nd respondent vide Lr.No.2612/WE.V(2)/2003 dated 28-07-2003 from the date of their initial appointment (Additional Grama Sevikas) in the post of Extention Oﬃcers (DWACRA) under the 3rd respondent with all attendant beneﬁts such as HRA, DA etc., ﬁxation of Pay and Seniority on par with the other Extention Oﬃcers (DWACRA) in the State of A.P., and consequently set aside the impugned G.O.Ms.No.124 PR & RD (RD.I) Department dt.31-03-2007, si bad, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and also colourable exercise of power and further, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.124 dt.31-03-2007 is contrary to the letter and spirit of the judgments of this Hon'ble Court rendered in W.p.No.9386 of 1997 & W.P.No.12936 of 1993 respectively and pass such other order or orders as deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Rev.W.P.M.P(SR).No.49704 of 2007 In W.P.No.9386 of 1997, W.P.No.9112 and Contempt Case No.361 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: This Rev.W.P.M.P. is ﬁled to review the order of this Court in W.P.No.9386 of 1997 dated 6.12.2006, whereby the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.492 dated 11.10.1999 or G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994 and directed that the entire exercise in this regard should be completed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The petitioners therein were all working as Additional Gram Sevikas in the oﬃce of the 3rd respondent. They were all re-designated later as Extension Oﬃcers (DWACRA). They were also ﬁxed in the minimum scale of pay with eﬀect from 1.7.2003 and paid all allowances such as D.A., H.R.A. as admissible under various Government orders. The Commissioner, vide letter dated 28.7.2003, informed the Special Chief Secretary to the Government that, as against 252 sanctioned posts, 235 Extension Oﬃcers were working. Along with the said letter a list of 238 Extension Oﬃcers was enclosed wherein the names of the petitioners ﬁnd place. Under G.O.Ms.No.70 dated 16.3.2005, the services of 48 Extension Oﬃcers (DWCRA) were regularized from the Districts of Srikakulam, Cuddapah, Anantapur, Mahabubnagar and Adilabad. After the aforementioned orders, respondents passed order in G.O.Ms.No.124 dated 31.3.2007 whereby the petitioners’ case was considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994 and their request for regularization was rejected. Questioning the said order of rejection W.P.No.9112 of 2007 was filed before this Court. Sri V.Surender Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would draw attention of this Court to the proceedings of the District Collector dated 15.12.1993 wherein petitioners 1 to 3, 6 and 7 were selected. The said order discloses that a regular selection committee was constituted and it was through a process of selection that the above petitioners were selected in existing vacancies. According to the Learned Counsel, the petitioners were also selected through a regular process selection on their names being sponsored by the employment exchange but it was on account of lack of sanctioned vacancies that they were not appointed on a regular basis but were given temporary appointment. Learned Counsel would submit that now that sanctioned posts have been created, vide G.O.Ms.No.492 dated 11.10.1999, the petitioners ought to have been appointed on regular basis in such vacancies. Learned Counsel would point out that, while some of the petitioners were appointed less than a year before G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994 was passed, a few others were appointed subsequent thereto, which was itself proof that the said G.O. had no application. Learned Counsel would contend that, since the petitioners were appointed through a regular process of selection on their names being sponsored by the employment exchange, now that sanctioned vacancies are available, all that the respondents are required to do is to appoint them in such available vacancies without further examining whether they fulﬁll the conditions under a scheme of regularization. According to the Learned Counsel, it is only in cases where persons are appointed on daily wages or on NMR basis or their initial appointment itself is through the back door, that a scheme of regularization is provided for and that the said scheme, in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, cannot be extended to persons who have been selected through a regular process of selection. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj would submit that, even in the case of those persons whose services were regularized in Srikakulam, Cuddapah, Anantapur, Mahabubnagar and Adilabad districts, all of them were considered for regularization only in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994 and it is only because they had fulﬁlled the conditions stipulated therein, that they were regularized. Learned Government Pleader would contend that, since the petitioners did not satisfy the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994, the respondents had no other option but to reject their cases in terms of G.O.Ms.No.124 dated 31.3.2007. Learned Government Pleader would, however, fairly state that the order of this Court dated 6.12.2006 necessitated review and, instead of a direction to consider the case of the petitioners “either in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.492 dated 11.10.1999 or G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994” this Court ought to have directed that their cases be considered “in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.No.492 dated 11.10.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994”. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that G.O.Ms.No.492 dated 11.10.1999 is only an order sanctioning vacancies but is not a scheme of regularization and that the said G.O does not by itself confer any right on the petitioners to be considered for regularization and that their cases can be considered only in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994. Learned Government Pleader would further state that the petitioners, along with others similarly situated, are still being continued in service and that the respondents do not intend to terminate their services as at present. The petitioners, as is evident from the documents ﬁled along with the writ petition, were appointed only after they were subjected to a regular process of selection. Further some of them were appointed after G.O.Ms.No.224 dated 22.04.1994 was issued. It is stated that there are several others similarly situated to the petitioners whose cases have been recommended for being appointed against the available vacancies. Since admittedly 34 vacancies are still available under G.O.Ms.No.492 dated 11.10.1999, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners along with other similarly situated for appointment on regular basis as and when they decide to ﬁll up the vacancies. Needless to state that such consideration shall be in accordance with law and the various orders issued by the Government from time to time. The Rev.W.P.M.P. is allowed and the order of this Court in W.P.No.9386 of 1997 dated 6.12.2006 is set aside. W.P.No.9112 of 2007 is allowed and the order in G.O.Ms.No.124 dated 31.3.2007 is also set aside. Since not only the petitioners, but several other Extension Oﬃcers (DWCRA) are required to be considered, I do not consider it necessary to ﬁx a time frame for such consideration. It is, however, made clear that the case of the petitioners shall be considered along with others similarly situated in terms of the directions hereinabove mentioned. Since the contempt case is ﬁled for non-implementation of the order of this Court in W.P.No.9386 of 1997 dated 6.12.2006, which order has itself now been set aside in review, the respondents cannot be said to have committed contempt. The contempt case is, accordingly, dismissed. ______________ 22-9-2008 asp