IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.19420 of 1999 Between: The Director, A.P.Police Academy, Himayat Sagar, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND K.Vasantha Kumar, S/o.K.Appanna, R/o.H.No.72-3RT, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.19420 of 1999 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The Director, A.P.Police Academy, Hyderabad filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in O.A.2993/1998 dated 01.05.1998. The said O.A. was filed by the respondent herein questioning the action of the petitioner herein in not regularizing his services as Cook and not paying regular salary. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. directing the petitioner herein to regularize the services of the respondent herein as Cook, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 as he has completed more than five years of service, keeping in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Excise Superintendent vs. KVN Visweswara Rao[1] that sponsoring the name of candidate by the Employment Exchange for selection is not required, within a period of three months from the date of the order. It is the case of the respondent/applicant before the Tribunal that he is entitled for regularization, as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. The respondent/applicant was appointed initially as a Home Guard on 03.09.1991 on consolidated pay and thereafter he was appointed as a Cook vide proceedings dated 16.08.1995 on temporary basis and thereafter he was removed from service vide proceedings 30.11.1996. Questioning the removal order, the respondent/applicant filed O.A.7372/1996 which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 19.07.1997, directing the petitioner herein to consider his case for appointment to the post of Cook as and when the post of Cook is filled up on regular basis, if he is otherwise eligible and qualified for such appointment. It is stated that as no action has been taken for his appointment as a Cook, he filed O.A.2993/1998 seeking declaration that the action of the petitioner herein in not regularizing his services as cook and not paying regular salary as illegal and arbitrary. The said O.A. was disposed of with the directions, as above. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. We are of the opinion that even if the appointment of the respondent/applicant as a Home Guard is taken into account from 03.09.1991, he is not entitled for regularization of his services as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, as he has not completed continuous service of five years from the date of his appointment as on 25.11.1993. Subsequent to his appointment as a Cook, he worked only for one year three months and thereafter he was removed from service on 30.11.1996, which was upheld by the Tribunal in O.A.7372/1996 by order dated 19.07.1997. The learned Government Pleader, Services-I submits that the respondent/applicant, at present, is not at all working in the Department, but whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant submits that the respondent/applicant has been working. No material is placed before us by the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant to substantiate his contention that the respondent/applicant has been working in the department at present. However, the subject matter of the writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.Manjula Bhashini v. MD, A.P.Women’s Co-operative Finance Corpn.Ltd.[2] and the relevant portions of which are extracted below: “Para-42: The question which remains to be considered is whether the Division Bench was justified in holding that all daily wage employees who completed 5 years service on the date of enforcement of Act No.27 of 1998,i.e., 19.8.1998 would be entitled to be considered for regularization of their services. A reading of Paragraphs 54, 67, 68 and 72 of the impugned judgment shows that even though the Division Bench did not find the cut off date i.e. 25.11.1993 specified in first proviso to Section 7 for determining the eligibility of daily wage employees for regularization to be arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory, yet it changed the said date from 25.11.1993 to 19.8.1998 solely on the premise that Act No.27 of 1998 was enforced with effect from that date. In our view, once the Division Bench negatived the challenge to the validity of Act Nos.3 of 1998 and 27 of 1998, there was no warrant for altering the date of eligibility specified in first proviso to Section 7 of the 1994 Act and thereby extend the zone of eligibility of daily wage employees who could be considered for regularization. As a corollary, we hold that the declaration made by the Division Bench that all persons who completed 5 years service as on the date of coming into force of Act No.27 of 1998 would be entitled to be considered for regularization of their services is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.” “Para-42:- In the result, the appeals filed by the employees are dismissed and those filed by the State Government and agencies/instrumentalities of the State are allowed. The declaration made by the Division Bench that the ban on regularization will be effective from 19.8.1998 i.e., the date on which Act No.27 of 1998 came into force and that all persons who have completed 5 years service as on that date would be entitled to be considered for regularization of service is set aside. It is, however, made clear that the daily wage employees and others who are covered by Section 7 of the 1994 Act (amended) and whose services have not regularized so far, shall be entitled to be considered for regularization and their services shall be regularized subject to fulfillment of the conditions enumerated in G.O.dated 22.4.1994. With a view to obviate further litigation on this issue, we direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh, its officers and agencies/instrumentalities of the State to complete the exercise for regularization of the services of eligible employees within four months of the receipt/production of copy of this order, without being influenced by the fact that the application, writ petition or appeal filed by any such employee may have been dismissed by the Tribunal or High Court or this Court. Since some of the appeals decided by this order relate to part time employees, we direct that similar exercise be undertaken in their cases and completed within four months keeping in view the conditions enumerated in G.O.(P) No.112 dated 23.7.1997.” Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 07.10.2009 Dsr [1] 1996 (6) SCC 216 [2] 2009 (5) ALD 58 (SC)