THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1923 of 2005 Date: 27.10.2009 Between: S. Trimurthulu and others. .... APPELLANTS AND The Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Hyderabad and another. Government of A.P. rep. By its Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rura Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .. Respondents. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1923 of 2005 Oral Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.8.2005 made in Writ Petition No. 20498 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants-writ petitioners. The appellants, who are the writ petitioners filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single Judge seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent-authorities in not regularising the services of the appellants in the existing vacancies in Clerical Cadre in the 4th respondent institute as arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. A consequential direction was also sought to regularise the services of the appellants with effect from 5.4.1993 in clerical cadre staff assistants with consequential benefits such as pay and allowance applicable to the post of Staff Assistant. According to the appellants-writ petitioners, they were appointed as Office Assistants on 2.8.1991, 4.8.1991 and 24.3.1992 respectively on contract basis. Appellants further claimed that as per the terms of the provisions of Act 2 of 1994, as amended from time to time, if a person completes five years of service as on 18.8.1998, subject to availability of clear vacancies, he is entitled for regularisation of his services. Since the appellants have completed five years of service, they are entitled for regularisation of their services as Office Assistants. They further pleaded that some of the employees, who were similarly situated and who were appointed as daily wage attenders under the NCDC Scheme, on an earlier occasion filed a Writ Petition No. 21468 of 1999 seeking regularisation of their services and the said writ petition was allowed on 22.1.2001 with a direction to regularize their services with effect from 25.11.1993, pursuant to which, their services were regularised. The grievance of the appellants is that the respondents-authorities are not taking any action to regularise their services. Hence, they filed the aforementioned writ petition seeking appropriate directions. While opposing the averments of the appellants-writ petitioners, the 1st respondent-Cooperative Bank filed its counter affidavit stating that in the case of Sri G.S. Satyanarayana and Smt. G. Padma, who were working in APCOB-CTI on contract basis, they have fulfilled the conditions stipulated in G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.4.1994 and since they have completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993, their services were regularised. In so far as Md. Rawoof , Sri T. Chittiabu and Sri D. Srinivas are concerned, the respondents stated that those persons have been working as daily wage attenders in APCOB-CTI and they have also fulfilled the conditions stipulated in G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994. However, when their services were not regularised, they fled Writ Petition No 21468 of 1999 before this Court seeking regularisation of their services, which was allowed by this Court on 22.1.2001. In so far as appellants are concerned, as they have not fulfilled the conditions stipulated under G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, they are not entitled for regularisation. They further stated that as per Section 3(2) of Act 2 of 1994, no temporary appointment shall be made in any public service to any post etc., without prior permission of the competent authority. A proviso is added to Section 7 of the Principal Act by Act 27 of 1998 stating that the services of those persons continuing as on 25.11.1993 having completed a continuous minimum period of five years of service on or before 25.11.1993 are alone eligible to be considered for regularisation. It is further stated that through letter dated 4.1.1999 though the bank recommended the case of 36 attenders for regularisation, the 2nd respondent recommended the case of only two candidates to the Government for regularisation and the Government also through Memo dated 5.7.2001, passed orders regularising their services. Since the appellants/petitioners have not fulfilled the conditions stipulated under G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.4.1994, they are not entitled for regularisation. The 2nd respondent while reiterating the very same contentions, which were stated by the 1st respondent had filed counter affidavit before the learned single judge stating that the Government has issued certain instructions for regularisation of services as daily wage employees through G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994 and as per the said G.O., those persons who have completed five years of continuous service as on 25.11.1993 alone are entitled for regularisation. Since the appellants have not completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993, they are not entitled for regularisation. The learned single Judge while taking into consideration the fact that the appellants have not fulfilled the conditions stipulated under G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994 has held that the appellants are not entitled for regularisation of their services. On that ground alone, he dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order of the learned single judge. On a perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the appellants have been appointed as Clerks on contract basis temporarily upto 30.6.1992. It is also seen from the appointment orders of the appellants appended to the material papers of the writ petition that the appointment of the appellants was purely on contract basis, that too for a temporary period. The record also discloses that the appellants have entered into an agreement with the respondents on 4.2.2005 whereunder it had been decided to appoint the appellants as Clerks on contract basis temporarily, subject to certain terms and conditions specified in the said agreement. Further Condition No.5 of the terms and conditions of the said agreement very clearly states that the appointment of the appellants as temporary clerks is purely on contract basis and they shall not have any right/claim for regularisation/absorption in the vacancies at APCOB. The appellants having signed the agreement duly accepting the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement are bound by the same and they have no right to seek for regularisation of their services contrary to what has been agreed upon by them. That apart, the appellants have also not completed five years continuous services as on 25.11.1993 and thus have not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.4.1994. Even on this ground also, the appellants are not entitled for regularisation of their services. The learned single Judge on an elaborate consideration of the matter has given cogent and convincing reasons for dismissing the writ petition. Under the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under appeal. The writ appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 27th October, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb