THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25634 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioners achieved accomplishments in different sports. Recognizing their meritorious performance in their respective sports, the APSRTC appointed them as Deputy Superintendents (Traffic), through different orders in the year 1991. Their services were regularized vide proceedings, dated 23.09.1999, with effect from the date of the order. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.19403 of 1999. The writ petition was allowed on 15.09.1999 by observing that various grounds urged by the petitioners were not taken into account, a direction was issued to the respondents to pass fresh orders, after considering the grounds urged by the petitioners. Thereafter, the Deputy Chief Personal Manager, the 2nd respondent herein, passed an order, dated 12.11.1999, rejecting the contentions of the petitioners that they are entitled to be regularized with effect from their appointment. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. The petitioners contend that they were appointed in recognition of their meritorious performance in sports events and absolutely there was no basis for denying the benefit of regularization from the date of initial appointment. The petitioners state that they are entitled to be given seniority on par with three employees, by name G.R.G.Rao, B.S.S. Reddy, and V.Ramaiah, who too were appointed under sports category. Respondents filed counter-affidavit and an additional counter- affidavit. It is stated that the appointments of the petitioners were against ex-cadre posts relaxing the conditions of qualification, experience training and that the regularization was ordered strictly in accordance with the service regulations. It is also stated that the petitioners cannot compare themselves with the employees, who came to be appointed under different circumstances. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.115, dated 21.02.1977 directing that every organization under its control must provide reservation to the extent of 1% in different categories of posts in favour of persons, who excelled in sports. Following this, the APSRTC, has also reserved certain posts in favour of the sportsmen. The normal procedure of selection and verification of qualifications is dispensed with for appointment into this category of posts. As soon as a person with excellent performance in any sport event is noticed, he is appointed against the post earmarked for that. The petitioners no doubt were found to have excellent performance in sports events. However, obviously on account of the lack of vacancies reserved for sports category, they have been appointed against ex-cadre posts. The continuance of an employee appointed against an ex-cadre post, has its own special features. Though the employee can be continued, the regularization of his services has to await certain events. He has to wait till a vacancy in the cadre strength arise and he has to be absorbed in it. As long as the cadre is full, an ex-cadre employee cannot be regularized. It is in this context that the regularization of the petitioners had to be effected only in the year 1999. The petitioners have drawn comparison with an employee, by name G.R.Kiran, who too was employed on the basis of his excellent performance in sports. However, the said individual held B-Tech, qualification and he did not require any relaxation of qualifications. Even the service of that gentleman was regularized on 31.08.1998, in view of the fact that his appointment was also against an ex-cadre vacancy. The circular, dated 09.04.1991, prescribes the procedure to be followed, be it for appointment or regularization of services of the persons who have excelled in the sports. That, however, is in respect of the posts earmarked for sports category. In case the appointment is against an ex-cadre post, regularization has to be strictly in accordance with the relevant service regulations. The services of the petitioners were regularized in accordance with the relevant service regulations and this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the impugned order. It, however, needs to be observed that the appointment of the petitioners in the year 1991, though against an ex- cadre vacancy, was on the basis of specific orders issued by the Managing Director, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of the service rendered by them, ever since the date of appointment. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the impugned order, but directing that the petitioners shall be entitled for the benefit of the services rendered by them, ever since the date of their initial appointment. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.01.07.2010. GJ