The State Of Ap vs Kollipara Shankar Rao
2021 Latest Caselaw 910 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI



 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      &
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR


                     WRIT APPEAL No.318 of 2020

                    (Taken up through video conferencing)


The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt.,
4th Block, A.P. Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District, and others.
                                                         .. Appellants
       Versus


Kollipara Shankar Rao,
S/o. late Subba Rao, aged about 55 years,
Occ: Gardener cum Water Boy,
ARR Junior College, Kollipara,
Guntur District, R/o. Near Vijaya Lakshmi
Dept. Stores, Main Road,
Kollipara, Guntur, and another.
                                                         .. Respondents

Counsel for the appellants : GP for Higher Education

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Srinivas Karra

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 17.02.2021

per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ

Heard the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for the

appellants.

Also heard Mr. Srinivas Karra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-

writ petitioner.

This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single

Judge dated 11.09.2019 passed in W.P.No.13557 of 2016, whereby the

learned single Judge directed the appellants herein to consider the case of

respondent No.1-writ petitioner for regularization of his services by

considering his service from the date of his appointment, which is

23.02.1987, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of the order.

Learned single Judge, in the aforesaid order, recorded as follows:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was appointed as Gardener on 23.02.1987 in the 4th

respondent College and the College was admitted into grant-in-

aid on 16.04.1990. Thereafter, he could not be regularized, as

he did not put in five years of service, as he was appointed

during ban period. He filed W.P.No.25534 of 2000 and the same

was disposed of on 26.11.2012 with a direction to consider the

case of the petitioner for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212,

dated 24.02.1994. But the 2nd respondent passed an order,

dated 06.02.2016, rejecting the case of the petitioner on the

ground that he did not put five years service as on 25.11.1993.

But the purport of G.O.No.212 seems to be to regularize the

service of all the employees, who are continuing as on

25.11.1993. If the five years service was intended to be

completed by the date the College was admitted to grant-in-aid,

the G.O. would have spelt the same. The only test is that the

employee should continue as on 25.11.1993. If they continue,

then they would be entitled for regularization of the entire

service. Hence the intent of G.O. is very clear that the services

of the petitioner have to be reckoned from his date of

appointment not from the date on which grant-in-aid was

given."

Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher

Education appearing for the appellants, submits that period of five years

has to be counted from the date when the college was admitted into

grant-in-aid and going by that yardstick, the writ petitioner did not fulfil

the requirement of five years of service as on 25.11.1993.

If the argument of the learned Government Pleader is accepted, it

would mean that no employee whose institutions were admitted into

grant-in-aid from the year 1989 onwards would be entitled to

regularization as, in that event, under no circumstances they would be

working for a period of five years upto 25.11.1993. Learned single Judge

was wholly justified in coming to the conclusion that the service of the

writ petitioner has to be reckoned from the date of his appointment and

not from the date on which the college was admitted into grant-in-aid, as

the G.O.Ms.No.212 did not contain a stipulation of service of five years

from the date of admission into grant-in-aid.

We see no good reason to interfere with the order of the learned

single Judge and, accordingly, the Writ Appeal, being devoid of merit, is

dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                            C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
                                                                        IBL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.318 of 2020

(Per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Dt: 17.02.2021

IBL