GOVERNMENT OF A.P. Vs. ARUN PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L .Narasimha Reddy 1. Respondent No.1 joined as an Attender in respondent No.2 private educational institution on 06.04.1985. The institution was admitted to grant -in -aid in the year 1994. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212 (FW -PC -III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 providing for regularization of temporary employees in various departments. Claiming the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, and other relevant orders, respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.933 of 2001 with a prayer to direct respondent No.2 and the appellants herein to absorb him against an aided vacancy. The writ petition was disposed of on 20.08.2001. In compliance with the direction issued therein, appellant No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.374, dated 25.03.2004, regularizing the services of respondent No.1 against an aided vacancy.

(2.) CLAIMING that he is entitled to be regularized from the date on which he completed five years of service, respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.9165 of 2006. The writ petition was disposed of on 14.03.2007, leaving it open to respondent No.1 to make a representation. He filed W.P.No.11815 of 2011 complaining that his case was not considered and claimed the relief of regularization of service with effect from the date on which he completed five years of service. The writ petition was allowed through order, dated 04.04.2012, directing that the services of respondent No.1 shall be regularized with retrospective effect from 22.04.1994 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. Hence, this writ appeal.

(3.) SRI Shyam S Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submits that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, providing for regularization of the services of temporary employees, subject to certain conditions and it is only on finding that respondent No.1 fulfilled those conditions, that G.O.Rt.No.373, dated 25.03.2004, was issued. He contends that once it was found that respondent No.1 was eligible to be regularized, the regularization ought to have been made with effect from the date on which he completed five years of service. Learned counsel contends that the benefit as per law to respondent No.1 was not extended. He submits that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge accords with G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, and other relevant provisions. 4. A perfect mechanism and well -designed process of selection and appointment to various posts in the service of Government and its agencies was kept aside and in the name of pruning the establishment. Recourse was taken to ad hocism and indiscriminate appointments were made bypassing the selection process. Though such arrangements were meant to be for a specific period and till the regular appointments are made, lobbying worked in such a way that the back door entries became the only source of employment into the Government service. One after the other, the Government Orders came to be issued providing for regularization of service of the employees who gained entry without any process of selection or competition. G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 is one such attempt. Respondent No.1 joined a private educational institution as an Attender. The appointment was not the result of any selection procedure. By the time he entered the service, the institution was not admitted to grant -in -aid. Claiming the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, he approached this Court and an innocuous direction was issued to consider his case in terms of the said G.O. On finding that respondent No.1 was entitled to be extended the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, G.O.Rt.No.373, dated 25.03.2004, was issued regularizing the services of respondent No.1. From that date onwards, he came to be absorbed against an aided vacancy.