THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.9548 of 2000 Date: 22.07.2010 Between: Smt. P. Sailaja Kumari … Petitioner AND The Govt. of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. and 3 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No.9548 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to the respondents to regularise her services as a Lecturer in Sericulture in the aided post in the fourth respondent college. By interim order dated 07.06.2000, this Court directed the respondents to continue the petitioner as a Junior Lecturer in Sericulture in the fourth respondent college. It is the case of the petitioner that she was selected as a Junior Lecturer in the fourth respondent college and appointed as such on 21.09.1988. She has been working as a part-time junior lecturer since then without break. The Government of Andhra Pradesh formulated a scheme for regularization of part-time lecturers under G.O.Ms.No.302, Education, dated 23.08.1991. It is the grievance of the petitioner that her case was not considered for regularization in spite of proposals being submitted by the fourth respondent-college. Reference is made to G.O.Ms.No.362, Education, dated 07.10.1994 extending G.O.Ms.No.212, Education, dated 22.04.1994 to the cases of part-time lecturers working against aided post in private degree/junior colleges. The petitioner also placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.328, Education, dated 15.10.1997 which dealt with the issue of regularization of services of part-time lecturers. It is her claim that she fulfilled all the conditions prescribed in the said G.O., but notwithstanding the same, her case was not considered. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, the Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, admitted the facts narrated herein above. He conceded that the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.328, Education, dated 15.10.1997 for regularization of her services. He went on to state that this G.O. was in force up to 14.04.1998 and that the Commissioner/Director of Intermediate Education had disposed of all the proposals received in this regard. G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 was thereafter extended up to 09.10.1998 by G.O.Ms.No.342, Education, dated 18.09.1998. While so, it appears that the fourth respondent-college submitted a proposal for the petitioner’s regularization in service under G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997, vide letter bearing Rc.No.75/JRK/97-98, dated 09.01.1998. This proposal was submitted to the Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Guntur, the third respondent herein. The third respondent returned the said proposal to the fourth respondent-college for furnishing the originals for verification. The fourth respondent-college then resubmitted the proposal to the third respondent under letter dated 12.04.1999. It is the case of the respondents that the proposal was resubmitted after the expiry of the period prescribed for effecting regularization under G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 and therefore, the petitioner’s case could not be considered. This case is a striking example of the apathy of the authorities and the bureaucratic redtape, which they indulge in, sacrificing the interests of the individual citizen. The counter affidavit itself demonstrates that the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997. The proposal thereunder was submitted on 09.01.1998 i.e., long before the cut-off date, 09.10.1998. The mere return of the proposal by the third respondent on the ground that the originals needed to be verified would not have the effect of wiping out the submission of the proposal itself. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the proposal submitted by the fourth respondent-college in respect of the petitioner’s regularization should be construed to be within time. After the said submission, whatever correspondence ensues amongst the respondents with regard to the deficiencies, if any, in such proposal would not have the effect of nullifying the submission of the proposal itself. Therefore, the respondents cannot construe the resubmission of the proposal on 12.04.1999 as a fresh submission beyond the cut off date. The petitioner, being fully qualified and eligible for seeking regularization as per the policy of the Government cannot be deprived of her lawful right because of the arbitrary action of the respondents in construing such proposal to be beyond time. The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing the respondents to consider the proposal submitted by the fourth respondent-college under letter dated 09.01.1998 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.328, Education, dated 15.10.1998 and pass necessary orders for the regularization of the services of the petitioner as a Junior Lecturer. This exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 22.07.2010 Isn