HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 11297 OF 2000 Friday, the Twenty First day of January, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Ch. Ramaswamy Petitioner AND The District Collector,/Chairman, Dist. Scheduled Caste Service Cooperative Society Limited, Medak District at Sangareddy and others Respondents ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. The petitioners 1 and 2 question the letter bearing No.25602/SCP-II-2/98-7 dated 27.3.2000 of the fourth respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed on 17.12.1984 and 31.3.1986 respectively as Section Writers on daily rated basis. Subsequently, they were paid on consolidated basis at Rs.900/- per month in the year 1990 and they were attending the duties of Junior Assistants. According to the case of the petitioners, they are entitled to be regularized as per the orders of the Government in GO Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994, as they have continuously worked as Section Writers. According to them, even the daily rated workers who continuously worked for a period of five years as on 25.11.1993 are entitled to be regularized subject to the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under the said GO. It is stated that there are two clear vacancies and they have continuously worked and, therefore, they have fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in the said G.O. for their regularization. As such, they have filed W.P. No. 8371 of 1995 seeking regularization of their services in terms of GO Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994 and the said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 28.4.1995 with a direction to consider their cases for regularization within six months. Pursuant to the said order, the Collector and Chairman, District Scheduled Caste Services Cooperative Society Limited, Medak at Sangareddy, passed orders in A/2368/94 dated 17.12.1998 regularising their services as Junior Assistants and Typist respectively in terms of GO Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 fixing up their seniority as per the Rule of Reservation in the backlog vacancies, pending approval of the proposal of the Managing Director. It is stated that after undergoing the selection process and conducting the examination, the examination was cancelled and subsequently, the said cancellation was revoked and result of the written test was declared and the petitioners were selected and regularized. Thereafter, the fourth respondent vide letter dated 9.6.1999 requested the third respondent to cancel the regularization orders, if already issued and to inform the Court that the regularization of services is by mistake. The said order was not communicated to the petitioners. But, however, another letter dated 27.3.2000 was addressed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department to Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited – third respondent herein, to the effect that the regularization by the proceedings of the third respondent is without fulfilling the conditions under GO Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 and accordingly, requested to cancel the regularization, already ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned letter dated 27.3.2000 and the earlier letter dated 9.6.1999 are without assigning any reason and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the petitioners have undergone selection process and on their fulfilling all the conditions, their services were regularized. It is not the case of the Government that there are no clear vacancies and the petitioners are not qualified or eligible for the post. While admitting the writ petition, by order dated 28.6.2000, this court suspended the impugned order and the petitioners are continuing. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any justification in fourth respondent directing the third respondent to cancel the regularization of the services of the petitioners inasmuch as their regularization is in terms of GO Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah January 21, 2011 MAS