THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 21730 of 1999 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners with retrospective effect as was done in case of others as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; consequently, to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of initial appointment i.e. 19.4.1985, with other consequential benefits. Petitioners are two in number. 1st petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Economics and 2nd petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Political Science, w.e.f. 19.4.1995 against unaided vacancies in B.B.H. Degree College, Vetapalem, Prakasam District. According to the petitioners, they were subjected to selection process and appointed, having applied in pursuance to a notification published in ‘Andhra Patrika’ on 21.12.1984. While so, in the year 1992, the entire college was admitted to grant-in-aid vide G.O.Ms.No. 564 dated 23.10.1992 with retrospective effect from 31.10.1986. However, though the petitioners were working since 1985 and they were appointed after having been subjected to regular selection process, their cases were rejected for being admitted to grant-in-aid on the ground that when they were selected in the year 1985, the subject expert was not there in the selection committee in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 905 dated 21.9.1976. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners have filed W.P. No. 4017 of 1992, which was disposed of on 7.4.1994 directing the petitioners to make a representation before the respondents therein. Though the respondents made a detailed representation on 19.4.1994, no action was taken, forcing the petitioners to file yet another writ petition – W.P. No. 3738 of 1996, which was disposed of on 18.3.1996 with the following directions: “In the circumstances, I consider it sufficient to direct the respondents, to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioners dated 19.4.1994 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order”. Even thereafter, their cases were not considered and the petitioners were constrained to file C.C. No. 102 of 1997. After filing the contempt case, the services of the petitioners were regularized with effect from 12.3.1997, vide G.O.Ms.No.440 dated 12.3.1997. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that the persons those who were working along with them in B.B.H. College, Vetapalem were regularized with effect from 16.4.1990 and though the petitioners were similarly placed, the services of the petitioners were not regularized as such, on the ground that their selection was irregular. However, it is their case that in similar circumstances i.e. those who were appointed irregularly, a lenient view was taken and their services were also regularized with retrospective effect. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court to G.O.Rt.No. 347 dated 1.3.1993 and G.O.Rt.No. 1023 dated 9.6.1993, G.O.Ms.No. 134 dated 30.3.1991 and G.O.Ms.No. 292 dated 22.2.1994 and G.O.Ms.No. 75 dated 27.1.1995. In all those cases, the services of the candidates were ratified though initially they were irregularly appointed and their services were regularized with retrospective effect. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioners and it is stated that 1st respondent have reviewed the policy of regulating and admitting the irregular appointments into grant-in-aid and issued orders in G.O.Ms.No. 78 Edn. Dated 15.3.96 to the effect that in any case where there is aided vacant post and adequate workload, the persons can be admitted into grant-in-aid from the date of issue of the orders. In view of the Government policy and as per orders of this Court dated 8.3.96 in W.P. No. 3738 of 1996, 1st respondent have issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.440/Edn.(CE.II-1) Department dated 12.3.97 to regularize the services of the petitioners. Accordingly, the services of P.G.K. Murthy and A. Ramakrishna were regularized as Lecturer in Economics and Lecturer in Political Science respectively in B.B.H. College, Vetapalem. However, for want of aided vacancy, 1st petitioner is shifted to C.S.R. Sarma College, Ongole in the existing aided vacancy and 2nd petitioner is shifted to VRS & NVR College, Tenali with prospective effect vide proceedings dated 26.3.1997. Since, petitioners have accepted G.O.Rt.No.440 dated 12.3.97 and proceedings dated 26.3.1997 unconditionally and as per the policy of the Government any ratification can only be made in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 78 Edn. Dated 15.3.96, the question of admission into grant-in-aid with retrospective effect does not arise. Besides, there are no sanctioned aided posts for the petitioners in support of their claim for admission to grant-in-aid either from 19.4.85 or 16.4.90. Further, the case of the petitioners referred to in the G.Os., 1767 dated 25.10.94, 134 Edn. Dated 30.3.91, 148 Edn., dated 26.6.93, 1023 dated 7.6.93 and G.O.Rt.No. 731 Edn. Dated 13.4.93 is not similar to the writ petitioners, as the said G.Os., were issued much earlier to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 78 Edn. Dated 15.3.96. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners for allowing them into grant-in-aid with retrospective effect is not feasible and the writ petition is devoid of merits. From the above, it is seen that though the services of certain candidates under the above said G.Os., were ratified though initially their appointment was irregular, by taking a lenient view their services were regularized with retrospective effect. There is no dispute as to this fact. In the counter, as noticed above, it is stated that the services of the petitioners have been regularized as Lecturer in Economics and Lecturer in Political Science respectively in B.B.H. College, Vetapalem. However, for want of vacancy, 1st petitioner was shifted to C.S.R. Sharma College, Ongole in the existing aided vacancy and the 2nd petitioner was shifted to VSR and MBR College, Tenali with prospective effect, vide proceedings dated 26.3.1997. Since the petitioners have accepted G.O.Rt.No.440 Educational dated 12.3.1997 unconditionally and in the meanwhile there was a change in the policy due to which the ratification can only be made in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 78 dated 15.3.1996, the question of admitting the posts held by the petitioners into grant-in-aid with retrospective effect does not arise. Besides, there was no sanctioned aided post for the petitioners in support of their claim for admission to grant-in-aid from 19.4.1995 or 16.4.1990. But, the fact remains that since there was workload available and two posts of Lecturers in Economics as well as Political Science were required in the said College, their cases were also recommended for being admitted to grant-in-aid along with others in B.B.H. College, Vetapalem. While issuing G.O.Ms.No. 564 dated 23.10.1992 admitting the entire college into grant-in-aid, petitioners were rejected on the ground that their initial appointment was irregular. Except this, there were no other reasons furnished as to workload etc. May be, as on the date of their absorption into other colleges, the workload in the B.B.H. College was little less but that itself does not mean that the petitioners are not entitled for being treated on par with those in whose cases the irregular appointment was ratified and absorption/regularization was ordered with retrospective effect. Therefore, as on the date of rejection of the cases of the petitioners vide G.O.Ms.No. 564 dated 23.10.1992, there was workload in the college and had they been treated on par with the abovementioned people, they were also entitled for ratification of their appointment and absorption with retrospective effect on par with their colleagues in B.B.H. College, Vetapalem. Instead of extending this benefit, in the guise of non-availability of workload in the B.B.H. College as on 12.3.1994, they were sent to different colleges. But, it has to be seen whether as on the date of consideration on par with others i.e. 23.10.1992 whether workload was available or not and whether they were entitled for regularization or not if the benefit of ratification of irregular appointments as granted in favour of others is extended in favour of the petitioners. If this is taken into consideration, it must be deemed that the cases of the petitioners were ratified even though they are irregularly appointed and they are entitled for regularization of their services on par with their other colleagues in B.B.H. College, with effect from 31.10.1986. The respondents have not treated the petitioners on par with similarly situated persons in the guise of G.O.Ms.No. 78 dated 15.3.1996. The said G.O. has come up on a later date and this G.O. ought not to have been applied in case of the petitioners for the purpose of regularization of their services with retrospective effect, as was done in case of other colleagues of B.B.H. College, Vetapalem. For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the appointment of the petitioners with effect from 19.4.1985 requires to be ratified as a regular appointment as was done in case of others as noticed above and they are entitled for regularization of their services with retrospective effect on par with their colleagues in B.B.H. College, Vetapalem with effect from 31.10.1986, without reference to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 78 dated 15.3.1996. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed, 1) to ratify the appointment of the petitioners as regular appointment as was done in case of others and, 2) to regularize the services of the petitioners with retrospective effect from 31.10.1986 on par with their colleagues in B.B.H. College, Vetapalem. 3) However, it is made clear that this benefit of retrospective regularization is only for the purpose of pensionary benefits and the petitioners are not entitled for any monetary benefits or any backwages or fixing of salary notionally, seniority, promotion etc. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 03-8-2010.