IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.8231, 9007 and 9021 of 1999 WRIT PETITION NO : 8231 of 1999 Between: C.Gopala Krishna, S/o. Dr.C.V.Subba Rao, R/o. Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by it's Principal Secretar, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Government of Andha Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularising the service of the petitioner as lecturer in Zoology w.e.f.., 3.12.1998 as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of Articles 14 of the Constitution of india and consequentially direct the Respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as lecturer w.e.f. 3.12.1990, the date on which a regular aided vacancy has arisen in the department of Zoology at Hindu College, Guntur, with all consequential benefits like that of arrrears of pay, seniority, increments, CAS benefits ect., and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION WRIT PETITION NO : 9007 of 1999 Between: 1 Dr. V. Sundari Devi, W/o. Dr. Prasada Raya Kulapati, Hindu College, Guntur, Resident of Guntur. 2 Dr. M. Vijaya Koteswari, W/o. Dr. Ranga Reddy, Hindu College, Guntur, Resident of Guntur. 3 Dr. D.N. Deekshitulu, S/o. Sri Ramacharyulu, Hindu College, Guntur, Resident of Guntur. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioners as lecturers w.e.f., 16-4-1990 and 29-9-1992 and 16-4-1990 as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of Article The Constitution of India and consequentially direct respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner lecturer w.e.f., 16-4-1990, 29-9- 1992 and 16-4-1990 at Hindu College, Guntur, with all consequential benefits like that of arrears of pay, seniority, increments, CAS benefits etc., and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION WRIT PETITION NO : 9021 of 1999 Between: 1 N.Viswam S/o.N.Sadasiva Rao at Hindu College, Guntur R/o.Guntur 2 A.Mohan Rao S/o.Gopalam at Hindu College, Guntur R/o.Guntur 3 S.Ravi Kumar S/o.Laxminarasimha Rao at Hindu College, Guntur R/o.Guntur ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary Education Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Collegiate Education Government of A.P. Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Secretary and Correspondent Hindu College, Guntur Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not admitting the petitioners into grant in aid from the date of interview as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and is against the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to admit the petitioners into grant in aid posts from the date of the interview i.e., 12/7/1993 with all consequential benefits like that of payment of salary, releasing of increments, granting benefits under Career Advancement Scheme, seniority etc., and pass such other order or orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.PSARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following Order: Petitioners services, in all these three writ petitions, had been regularized pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23-08-1991. On the specious plea that while their services were regularized in the year 1996, the Government, in relaxation of the rigorous conditions in G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23-08-1991 and the earlier government orders in force, had appointed several other persons earlier, named in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners contend that they should also be extended the same benefit. Sri P.V.S.S.S.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly concede that G.O.Ms.No.302, dated 23-08-1991, does not confer any power on the Government to relax the rigorous conditions prescribed therein. Even if the petitioners contention were to be accepted that the persons referred to in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition were regularized contrary to the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23-08-1991, the mere fact that the Government had illegally regularized the services of others would not entitle the petitioners to claim that the illegally should be perpetuated (Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh[1]). In any event the petitioners have not even chosen to array the persons on whom such benefits were conferred as party respondents in the writ petition and, in the absence of their being arrayed as respondents, it is not for this Court to go into the question whether their appointments were made in accordance with law or not. If they had been arrayed as respondents the question, whether they were regularized contrary to the rules, could have been examined and, if found to be true, their appointments could have been set aside. The petitioners cannot, however, claim parity with persons who were allegedly given the benefit of regularization, contrary to the rules. Viewed from any angle, these writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________ 27-02-2008 usd [1] AIR 1995 SC 705