R.GANGADHAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition was filed questioning the order of the erstwhile Tribunal in O.A.no.5077 of 2000 dtd. 1/8/2007. The petitioner sought for regularization of his service under G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dtd. 22/4/1994. The petitioner worked initially as contingent employee in the Government Degree College/ the 3rd respondent as Attender. He worked initially between September, 1987 to 17/3/1995. Since his case was not considered under G.O.Ms.No.212 dtd. 22/4/1994, he approached the erstwhile Tribunal in O.A.No.469 of 1994 dtd. 4/4/1995.

(3.) As could be seen from the above said proceedings of the 2nd respondent dtd. 19/8/1999 and the order of the erstwhile Tribunal dtd. 1/8/2007 there is a contrast between them in observing the service particulars of the petitioner/ applicant therein and the reasons assigned. It is not in dispute that the petitioner worked as daily wage earner in the 3rd respondent college by attending the duties as "Games Boy" on a consolidated pay continuously as there was no dispute with respect to the duration of work between September, 1987 to 17/3/1995. Admittedly, G.O.Ms.No.212 dtd. 22/4/1994 stipulates the cutoff date as 25/11/1993 for the purpose of reckoning the period of service of five years as on the date. Though much later to the said date, the services of the petitioner was terminated, still as he complied with the other conditions of G.O.Ms.No.212 dtd. 22/4/1994 with respect to the nature of employment and the period of employment as on the said cutoff date of 25/11/1993, the regularization of the petitioner cannot be negatived on the ground that much later to the said contingency, the petitioner's services were not utilized later on and he was not allowed to work against the clear vacancy. Such grounds are not available for the authorities concerned specifically in view of the G.O.Ms.No.212 dtd. 22/4/1994 which was issued for the specific purpose of regularizing the services of NMRs, daily wage employees, etc., who were working like a regular employee. It is also to be noted that, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent dtd. 23/11/1994 specifically stating that there are two vacancies in the cadre of Attenders for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner herein to regularize his services as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dtd. 22/4/1994. It is manifest that the said proceedings of the 3rd respondent dtd. 23/11/1994 was not considered by the 2nd respondent while issuing the above said impugned proceedings and at the same time the Tribunal also did not consider the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dtd. 23/11/1994 before dismissing the O.A.