IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal Nos.877 of 2001 & 679 of 2002 Writ Appeal No. 877 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19.1.2001 in WP NO: 11073 OF 1996 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) The Registrar, JNTU, Mahaveer Marg, Hyderabad. 2) The Principal, JNTU College of Engineering, Anantapur. ... APPELLANTS AND 1) S. Subrahmanyam Balaji S/o. Suryanarayana Murthy, aged about 26 years, D.No.6/470, R.R.District. 2) Government of A.P. rep. By its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.C. KODANDA RAM, SC FOR JNTU Counsel for Respondent No. 1: MR.B. KAMALAKAR RAO Counsel for Respondent No.2: G.P. FOR EDUCATION Writ Appeal No.679 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19.1.2001in WP NO : 11073 OF 1996 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ... APPELLANT AND 1 S.Subrahmanyam Balaji, S/o Suryanarayana Murthy, D.No.6/470 R.R.District. 2 The Registrar, JNTU, Mahaveer Marg, Hyderabad. (R2 not necessary Party in this Appeal) 3 The Principal, JNTU, College of Engineer, Ananthapur. (R3 not necessary party in this Appeal) ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR EUDCATION Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.B.KAMALAKARA RAO The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. Both these appeals have been filed against the order dated 19.01.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11073 of 1996. In the circumstances, the appeals are being heard together. 2. By virtue of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, certain directions have been given with regard to regularization of the services of respondent No.1 – original petitioner in the afore-stated petition. 3. Upon perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the basis of the order passed in Writ Petition No.16850 of 1997, but the order passed in Writ Petition No.16850 of 1997 had been challenged in Writ Appeal No.483 of 2001 and the said appeal has been allowed by this Bench today i.e. 06.8.2009 and the order passed in Writ Petition No.16850 of 1997 has been quashed and set aside by relying upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3)[1] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand[2]. 4. For the reasons recorded in Writ Appeal No.483 of 2001 and looking to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra) and Official Liquidator (supra), these appeals are also allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11073 of 1996 is quashed and set aside. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ August 06, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {VSMI} [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] (2008) 10 SCC 1