THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.17634 of 2002 ORDER: The point that is raised for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 22.04.1994. 2. The admitted facts are all the three petitioners were employed as Field Assistants in Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board at Visakhapatnam on daily wages. The first and third petitioners were appointed in the fourth respondent’s office on 23.12.1989 and 26.06.1990 respectively, while the second petitioner was appointed in the 3rd respondent’s office on 06.07.1990. Ever since then they were working on daily wages. In this writ petition the petitioners are seeking a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to regularize their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 mentioned supra. 3. It may be noted that in G.O.Ms.No.212 a certain criteria is prescribed for regularizing the daily wage employees and the other categories of employees mentioned therein. One important condition is that such daily wage workers should be in service as on 25.11.1993 and by that date they should nave completed five years of service in the posts concerned. In the present case going by the above dates of appointment of the petitioners they cannot be said to have complied with the condition of putting in five years of service as on 25.11.1993. A Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 19.08.2009 in W.P.No.25961 of 2001 clearly held that only those daily wage employees who fall within the four corners of G.O.Ms.No.212 and who were in service as on 25.11.1993 and are continuing, alone are eligible for regularization and not otherwise. 4. The learned counsel for petitioners relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court given in State of Karnataka v. M.L.Kesari[1] and also the earlier decision of the Supreme Court given in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi[2]. 5. It is true that in those two decisions also certain principles have been laid down regarding regularization. It may however be noted that in our State insofar as petitioners/employees concerned they are governed by G.O.Ms.No.212 mentioned supra. The Supreme Court in A.Manjula Bhashini v. A.P. Women’s Coop. Finance Corpn. Ltd.[3] considered the terms of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.212 and held that for a person to claim regularization under the said G.O. he should strictly fall within the parameters of the said G.O. It was basing on this decision of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench of our High Court held that the conditions requisite in G.O.Ms.No.212 should be in existence or complied with by those claiming regularization under it. In view of this, the aforesaid Supreme Court decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot help them as they are easily distinguishable. 6. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. It shall however be open for the petitioners to make a representation for their regularization and the authorities may consider the same if it is otherwise permissible under any other rules. No costs. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 11th August 2011 CVRK [1] AIR 2010 SC 2587 [2] AIR 2006 SC 1806 [3] (2009) 8 SCC 431