HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1180 OF 2009 Dated: 07-10-2009 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh (Agriculture and Cooperation) rep., by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad Mangathayaru ... APPELLANT AND M. Elisha Prabhakar and four others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Admit. At the request of the learned advocates, the appeal is finally heard today. 2. Being aggrieved by an order dated 05-10-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 21274 of 2006, respondent No.1 in the said petition has filed this appeal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the litigation have been described as arrayed in the petition. 4. The petitioners had approached this Court by way of the aforestated petition with a prayer that their services be regularized as they had been working since long time. After hearing the concerned advocates, the learned single Judge allowed the petition by directing regularization of the services of the petitioners in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04-1994. 5. It is pertinent to note that as per the aforesated G.O., if an employee has worked for five years before the cut off date i.e., 25-11- 1993 and if there is a clear vacancy, such employee is entitled to regularization of his services. 6. It is an admitted fact that in the instant case, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 had not completed five years service as on the cut off date. As petitioner No.2 – Sri R. Suresh, S/o N. Ramachandrappa had completed five years service as on 25-11-1993 and as there was a clear vacancy, his services had been regularized in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. But so far as petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are concerned, the respondent – employer has approached this Court with a submission that it was not open to this Court to give direction in violation of the G.O referred to hereinabove. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent – employer has relied upon the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi[1] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand[2]. 8. Now, the law is settled to the effect that there cannot be regularization unless there is a policy with regard to the same. In the instant case, the learned single Judge has given direction in violation of the policy laid down in G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated 22-04-1994. More over, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.M. Bashini v. Managing Director, A.P Women’s Coop Finance Corpn.,[3] has observed that it is not open to this Court to alter the cut off date i.e., 25-11-1993 prescribed in G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated 22-04- 1994. 9. Looking to the above facts, in our opinion, it was not open to the learned single Judge to give any direction for regularization in violation of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994. Moreover, we find that the order passed by the learned single Judge is also in violation of the judgment delivered in the case of A.M. Bashini’s case (3 supra). 10. For the aforestated reason, we find substance in the appeal. The impugned order is quashed so far as it gives direction to the respondent – employer to regularize the services of petitioner Nos.1 and 3. 11. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel to the disposal of the appeal, WAMP No. 2469 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07-10-2009 ks [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] (2008) 10 SCC 1 [3] 2009 (9) SCALE 99