THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.16031 of 1996 Between Thatapudi Abraham and others ..Petitioners AND Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Education Department and others ..Respondents JUDGMENT 21.2.2007 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.16031 of 1996 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the validity of the orders passed by the State Government in Memo dated 6.1.1995 through which memo the State Government had kept in abeyance the orders passed by it in their G.O.Ms.No.362, Education Department dated 7.10.1994. The writ petitioners allege that they were recruited as ad hoc Lecturers on various dates between August, 1984 to August, 1988 in the third respondent Degree College which is a privately managed institution. The writ petitioners assert that they are otherwise qualified and are eligible to be recruited as Lecturers in Degree Colleges. They also assert that they were recruited against clear vacancies available in the third respondent Degree College and they had rendered continuous service ever since their initial adhoc engagement in the College. They assert that the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.362 dated 7.10.1994 for regularizing the services of the lecturers who have been engaged on part time basis and a scheme for regularization of the services of the lecturers has been evolved subject to their satisfying the conditions listed out therein. But unfortunately, before the formal orders of regularization could be passed, the State Government issued orders through the impugned memo dated 6.1.1995 keeping the orders issued in the G.O.No.362 in abeyance. It is asserted by the writ petitioners now that their services have since been regularized, but however not with reference to the date of their initial engagement. The State Government in their counter affidavit contested the claims made by the writ petitioners, but however, in some what similar circumstances, this Court while deciding W.P.No.19475 of 1996 had granted liberty to the petitioner therein to file representations before the appropriate authorities seeking regularization of services from the initial date of his engagement and upon such representation being filed, the authorities have been ordered to consider the same in accordance with any scheme available on the subject or in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioners urges that with a similar direction, this writ petition can also be disposed of. Hence, the writ petitioners are at liberty to file a representation before the appropriate agency of the State and solicit regularization of their services from the date of their initial engagement which representation when so filed, will be examined on its merits and the same be decided in accordance with any policy decision or scheme enunciated by the State Government or in accordance with law. Such decision be taken as expeditiously as possible, but however within a time frame limit of six months. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO.J. 21.2.2007 psr