THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 18547 of 1999 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been filed by a Gardener, who has been engaged initially on 05.08.1991 by the Project Officer of the Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Srisailam Project and continuing as such till date, seeking regularization of her services. It is submitted that the writ petitioner belongs to Scheduled Castes and that she has been appointed initially as a Sweeper in the Integrated Tribal Development Agency at Srisailam on 05.08.1991 and she has been continuously rendering service in ITDA, Srisailam ever since. The petitioner was paid initially daily wages. She continued as such till 03.04.1993. Due to her ill-health, she could not attend to duty for a period of four months. However, with effect from 01.08.1993, again, the petitioner was entertained to duty and as at the time when this Writ Petition came to be instituted in August 1999, her pay which was raised periodically has reached Rs.2,100/- per month. She solicited regularization of her service. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has pointed out that in the latest judgment rendered on 03.08.2010 reported in State of Karnataka v. L. Kesari[1], the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the import of directions contained in paragraph 53 of the judgment rendered by it earlier in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi[2] on 10.04.2006. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the latest judgment, this is what the Supreme Court has pointed out: “ 5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ‘regularization’ enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selections, such appointments are considered to be irregular. Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunal, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.04.2006). 6. The term ‘one-time measure’ has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.” Ultimately in paragraph 8, the entire issue has been summarized as under: “ The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two-fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.04.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umdevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.” From the above, it is now abundantly clear that the true effect of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case in paragraph 53 is that all persons, who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.04.2006, the date on which the decision was rendered in that case, without any protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts possessing requisite qualifications are entitle for regularization. In the instant case, the writ petitioner had nearly put in 15 years of service by 10.04.2006. Even if one were to discard the earlier service rendered by the writ petitioner prior to 01.08.1993, in view of a four months gap, the service continuously rendered by the writ petitioner from 01.08.1993 renders her to have completed 13 years of service by 10.04.2006. There is no controversy with regard to the qualifications possessed by her and in the Integrated Tribal Development Agency, the principles of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes would equally be applicable. I, therefore, consider the present case to be a fit case where the respondents should be directed to take up the case of the writ petitioner for regularization as a Sweeper-cum-Gardener and pass appropriate orders in view of the directions contained in the latest judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Kesari (cited supra), within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 12th August 2010 ksld [1] 2010(1) Decisions Today (SC) 358 [2] (2006) 4 SCC 1