THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.4872 of 2001 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard both the counsel. The petitioner was appointed as part-time lecturer during the year 1991-92 in the 5th respondent college. Prior to that, he worked in an unaided post in some other college, which was subsequently aided. He seeks to count the service rendered by him in aided post in some other college for regularisation of his services. Earlier, he also filed W.P.No.25385 of 1999 seeking regularisation of his services and this court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents therein to consider his case for absorption as per G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15-10-1997, if he possess the required educational qualifications and experience and if he fulfils all the conditions prescribed for the said post. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent considered and rejected his case vide impugned proceedings dated 23-01-2001. Questioning the same, this writ petition has been filed. As per G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15-10-1997, the part-time lecturers, who have put in continuous service of three academic years as on 30-07-1991 or five academic years as on 25-11-1993 are alone entitled to be considered for regularization of their services, subject to fulfillment of other conditions. As the petitioner did not fit into the scheme as prescribed in the aforesaid G.O., he is not entitled for regularization of his services and he cannot question the newspaper Notification, dated 10-07-2001 issued by the 3rd respondent. Insofar as fixing the cut off date is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already upheld the main G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994, the Act 2 of 1994 and the amended Act 3 of 1998 and Act 27 of 1998 in the case of A.Manjula Bhashini Vs. MD, A.P.Women’s Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited[1]. Following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the cut off date, as fixed in the aforesaid G.O. is legal and valid. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order passed on 20-03-2001 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J _______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 13-10-2009 Prv [1] 2009 (5) ALD 58 (SC)