IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.1347 of 2002 Between: K.V.S.Subba Raju ..... PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.1347 of 2002 O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. None appeared for Respondents Nos.1 and 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed in the 3rd respondent Aided College as Junior Assistant on 30.04.1988 in regular timescale of pay, payable by the Management of the 3rd respondent college alone. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 deciding that the services of such persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years and are continuing as on 25.11.1993 be regularized by the appointing authorities subject to fulfillment of the conditions that the persons appointed should possess the requisite qualifications prescribed as per the rules in force. It is stated that there are certain vacancies available in the grant-in-aid post and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 in the aided post. No counter is filed on behalf of Respondents Nos.1 and 2, but the 3rd respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the 3rd respondent college on 30.04.1988 and he has been working in the college since then by receiving salary from the college. It is stated that subsequent to the scheme formulated by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, the competent authority called for proposals for regularization of unaided staff into aided posts and the 3rd respondent submitted proposals on 11.03.2002 to the Director of Collegiate Education, Government of A.P. Nampally, Hyderabad pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.272/Admn.III/2002, dated 01.03.2002. But the particulars of the proposals for regularization have not been furnished except enclosing the letter dated 11.03.2002 stating that the petitioner was working as unaided non-teaching staff and proposals were submitted to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education in terms of G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997. The prayer in the writ petition is to admit the petitioner in grant-in-aid post in the 3rd respondent college as per the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, but the proposals were sent in terms of G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 22.04.1994. It is not known what has happened about the alleged proposals. However, as per the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.Manjula Bhashini and ors. Vs. M.D, A.P.Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited[1] it is for the respondents to consider the claims of the persons in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 or in terms of G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997, as the case may be. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to send fresh proposals in terms of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 or in terms of G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997 and if any such proposals are sent and received by Respondents Nos.1 and 2, and same may be considered and disposed of, in terms of the said G.Os. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 28.10.2010 Dsr [1] 2009(5) ALD 58(SC)