1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

                  “...to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and absorption of his services against the existing grant-in-aid post in Lecturer of Commerce in the 3rd respondent-College from the date of his initial appointment to the said post, on par with the Lecturers, whose services were regularized by relaxing the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CEI-2) Department, dated 10.1.1992, in G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated 27.3.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.328, Education (CE-III) Department, dated 15.10.1997 with all consequential benefits, by duly setting aside the Memo No.2424/CE/A2/2017, dated 01.07.2017 issued by the 1st respondent – State Government rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization of his service as Lecturer in Commerce as illegal and pass...”

2. Heard Sri T. Surya Karan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, argued on behalf of Sri K. Sita Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

                  (a) Initially, the petitioner worked as a Lecturer in Commerce in New Government Degree College, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, on consolidated pay, during the academic year 1994-95 and 1995-96 on par with regular Government lecturers. Subsequently, in response to the Newspaper advertisement made in Deccan Chronicle, dated 16.11.1996, by respondent No.3 for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Commerce on consolidate payment with annual increments @ 10% on the said consolidated amount. The petitioner applied for the said post and got selected and appointed as a Lecturer in Commerce in the 3 rd respondent College with effect from 25.11.1996 i.e., academic year of 1996-97. In fact, the post of Lecturer in Commerce, which was advertised, is a post admitted to grant-in-aid and against the said post, recruitment Notification was given for appointment on consolidated pay.

                  (b) The petitioner resigned from the New Government Degree College, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, and joined as a Lecturer in Commerce in the 3rd respondent-college on 25.11.1996 and since then he has been continuing till date. The petitioner was working against the grant-in-aid post i.e., in a clear vacancy, and is entitled for regular appointment as a Lecturer in Commerce. Even though the petitioner is fully eligible and qualified for regular appointment, in spite of putting 21 years of service, the respondents are not taking any steps for regularization of petitioner’s service in the existing grant-in-aid vacancy. Despite there being vacant six sanctioned aided posts in the said cadre, the respondents filled only one vacancy, reserved for scheduled Tribe on regular basis, in the year 2001.

                  (c) The petitioner filed W.P.No.17123 of 2001 before this Court and the same was disposed of on 03.07.2013, directing the respondents to consider the fresh proposals sent by the 3rd respondent-college, dated 11.10.2012, in respect of petitioner’s absorption against the grant-in-aid post within a period of six weeks and pass appropriate orders. The Government, vide Memo No.9038/CE-II.2/2013-2, Higher Education (CE-II) Department, dated 24.12.2013, passed orders rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization of his service and admission into grant-in-aid. Pursuant to the same, consequential proceedings were issued by the 2nd respondent vide R.C.No.367/AdmisV2/2013, dated 13.11.2014. The petitioner is working as a Vice Principal in the 3rd respondent-college with effect from 27.06.2013.

                  (d) The above said impugned orders were issued rejecting the petitioner’s case on two grounds i.e., the 3rd respondent-college, while appointing the petitioner had not followed the required procedure as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CEI-2) Department, dated 10.01.1992, and further as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated 27.03.2006, there was a general ban in filling up of vacant aided posts in private Aided Degree Colleges. The Government, in fact, relaxed the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CEI-2) Department, dated 10.01.1992, for selection of Lecturers in the Aided Colleges and regularized their services against the aided posts. By considering the orders of this Court in various writ petitions, some of the candidates’ services were regularized and absorbed in the aided posts in several colleges, in spite of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated 27.03.2006.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to appreciate the proposals dated 12.11.2012, 25.07.2013, 08.08.2013, 21.09.2013 and 25.07.2013 respectively sent by the 3rd respondent for the purpose of regularization and absorption in grant-in-aid post, even though several orders, as stated above, were issued in respect of similarly situated persons.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 1st respondent-State Government contended that the G.O. Rt. No. 256, Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated 11.5.2012, issued in respect of Smt. B.D.J. Satya Latha and others, wherein their appointments as Lecturers in the un-aided posts, were through, duly constituted Selection Committee, after obtaining approval from the competent authority. Smt. B.D.J. Satya Latha and others were appointed, vide Proceedings Rc. No. 451/Admn.VI-2/2000, dated 28.9.2002, that means, they have not fulfilled the conditions as per G.O. Ms. No. 328, Education (CE.III) Department, dated 15.10.1997, as per the said G.O., one should have completed 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993. That means the Government relaxed the conditions laid down in G.O. Ms. No. 328, Education Department, dated 15.10.1997 in respect of the above said case but rejected petitioner’s case on untenable ground, stating that petitioner was not appointed after selection by the valid selection committee, is illegal. Further, the G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated 27.03.2006 is also relaxed, in the above said case, since the regularization orders were issued in the ban period, Imposed in G.O. Ms. No. 35, Higher Education (CE.II.1) Department, dated 27.3.2006.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the other case pertains to the regularization of service of one Sri V. Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer, vide G.O.Rt. No. 311, Higher Education (IE) Department, dated 16.12.2014. That the Government contends that there is no similarity of the petitioner's case with that of Sri V. Premachandrudu's case. The G.O.Rt.No.311, Higher Education (IE) Department, dated 16.12.2014, itself makes clear that earlier Sri V. Premachandrudu's case was rejected, because he had not fulfilled the terms and conditions prescribed in G.O. Ms. No. 328, Education Department, dated 15.10.1997 i.e., one should have completed the service of 5 years as on 25.11.1993, since he was appointed only on 26.07.1993 and from the above it is clear that Sri V. Premachandrudu, is also not having 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993. Thus, the Government issued orders in G.O. Rt. No. 311, Higher Education (IE) Dept., dt. 16.12.2014, by duly relaxing the G.O.Ms.No. 328, Education Department, dated 15.10.1997, in case of Sri V. Premachandrudu.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the G.O.Rt.No. 311, Higher Education (IE) Department, dated 16.12.2014, issued on the basis of earlier cases of regularization issued in favour of Sri Dr. R.V. Anuradha and Smt. K. Meghamala, in which G.O. Ms. No. 12 and G.O.Ms.No. 328 were relaxed. Even though Sri V. Premachandrudu belongs to SC/ST category, he was to be appointed by following selection procedure and by a valid selection committee, which was specified in G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CE.II) Department, dated 27.3.2006. Hence while issuing G.O. Rt. No. 311, Higher Education (IE) Department, dated 16.12.2014, the State Government relaxed in G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CE.II) Department, dated 27.03.2006 and also G.O.Ms.No. 12, Education (CEI-2) Department, dated 10.1.1992. The above said fact is clear from the Commissioner's affidavit, filed on 22.09.2014 in the Court of law. It is also clear from the Letter Rc. No. Admn.1/449/2014, dated 12.08.2014 by the Commissioner that in the case of Sri V. Premachandrudu, the Government relaxed G.O.Ms. No.12, G.O. Ms. No. 328 and G.O. Ms. No. 35. Appointment order proves that he was not appointed by the Selection Committee dated 26.07.1993.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the case of G.O.Rt.No.269, Sri Mohd. Naseeruddin Farooqui, and 3 others were regularized by the Higher Education (CE/A2) Department, dated 13.11.2014, even though they were non-technical staff, G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance (PC.III) Department, dated 22.4.1994, will be applicable i.e., the relevant G.O. 212 is for non teaching person and G.O. Ms. No. 328, Higher Education (CE.III) Department, dated 15.10.1997, is for teaching persons. In this case also the State Government relaxed G.O. 35 l.e., ban on appointment.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thus for all the reasons stated above, that the impugned order issued in Memo No. 2424/CE/A2/2017, dated 01.07.2017, issued by the 1st respondent, is illegal. The 1st respondent ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for regularization of his service in the category of Lecturer in Commerce as was done to similarly situated persons whose services were regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.311, Higher Education (IE) Department, dated 16.12.2014, G.O.Rt.No.269, Higher Education (CE/A2) Department, dated 13.11.2014 and G.O. Rt.No.256, Higher Education (CE.II.1) Department, dated 14.05.2012. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

10. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter and submits as follows:

                  (a) That the petitioner was appointed as a Part-time Lecturer in Commerce in the 3rd respondent College on 25.11.1996 without following the prescribed procedure for recruitment of Lecturers in Private Aided Colleges. The Government through G.O.Ms.No.12 Education (CEI-2) Department, dated 10.01.1992 had prescribed procedure of selection of Lecturers in private Colleges. The Management of the 3 rd respondent College has not followed the prescribed procedure as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No. 12.

                  (b) The Government in its G.O.Ms.No.328/Edn., dt. 15.10.1997 issued orders for regularization of services of Part-time Lecturers in Aided Colleges with certain conditions. The foremost condition for regularization of Part-time Lecturers is that, only those who have put in service of 3 academic years as on 30.07.1991 or 5 academic years as on 25.11.1993 as the case may be and also continuing in service as on the date of issue of the order, dated 15.10.1997, are eligible for regularization. As 120 days are considered to be reasonable number of working days for an academic years the PTLs and PTLS should have put in 360 working days as on 30.07.1991 or 600 working days as on 25 11.1993.

                  (c) The petitioner was appointed as a Part-time Lecturer by the Management of the 3rd respondent College on 25.11.1996, as such he had not fulfilled the conditions of putting in of required service as per G.O.Ms.No.328/Edn., dt. 15.10.1997. Moreover, the Government through G.O.Ms.No 283 Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated 03.09.1999 annulled the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms.No.328, Education (CEIII) Department, dated 15.10.1997. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.17123 of 2001 praying for his absorption into Aided post. The High Court through orders dt.03.07 2013 passed the following directions:

                  "Respondent Nos.1 (the Government) and 2 (Commissioner of Collegiate Education) to consider the above representations of respondent No.3 and to pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order"

                  (d) In view of the Orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the Government (1st respondent) through Memo No.9038/CE 11.2/2013-2, Higher Education (CEI) Department, dated 24.12.2013 had rejected the request of the petitioner for regularization of his service as Lecturer in Commerce on the following Grounds:

                  01. The management of S.D. Signodia College of Arts & Commerce & PG Centre, Hyderabad has not followed any procedure while appointing Sri. M. Naga Raja who was appointed as Part Time Lecturer in Commerce in the college.

                  02. The individual does not come under purview of G.O. Ms.No.328, Education, dated 15.10.1997, since he was appointed on 25.11.1996 and Said G.O was annulled by issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 283, Education, dated 03.11 1999.

                  03. The Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CEII-1) Department, Dated 27.03.2006 to the effect that:

                  a) There would be a general ban on filling up vacant aided posts in Private Aided Junior/Degree Colleges and Polytechnics through direct-recruitment, except in respect of SC/ST backlog vacancies.

                  b) Vacant aided posts in Colleges and Polytechnics may be filled up by way of recruitment by transfer / promotion of an aided employee working in an aided post as per existing service rules, subject to however to the condition that the resultant vacant aided post in the lower cadre shall be taken out of Grant-in-aid.

                  (e) The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking orders for relaxation of Selection procedure by relaxing the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.12 Education (CE1-2) Department, dt.10.01.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.35, Η.Ε. (CE.II-1) Department, dt.27.03.2006. The then Government ratified the illegal appointments of several Lecturers, that does not mean that this Government also commit similar irregularities against the rules in force. If that is allowed the managements of the colleges will fill up vacancies as per their Whims and Fancies by recruiting their own candidates and it amounts to denying the equal opportunity to the unemployed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot equate his case on par with the cases mentioned in the Affidavit.

                  (f) As on date, the Government has not framed any policy for regularization of Part-time Lecturers working in Aided Colleges. Therefore, the petitioner cannot not seek any regularization that too relaxing the selection procedure as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.12 Education (CE.I-2) Department, dated 10.01.1992 and ban orders imposed vide GO.ME No.35, H.Е. (СЕ II-1) Department, dated 27.03.2006. If the relaxation is given to the petitioner, it will lead lot of complications. The orders as issued vide Government Memo No. 9038 / CE.II.2 / 2013-2, Higher Education (CE.II) Department, dated 24.12.2013 holds good and the petitioner has no fresh grounds for filing Writ petition citing the same reasons.

                  (g) As per G.O.Rt.No.256, Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated 11.5.2012 is regarding Smt. B.D.J.Satya Latha and 4 others wherein their appointments as Lecturer in the un-aided posts, were through duly constituted Selection Committee after obtaining approval from the Competent Authority. That is not the case in the appointment of Sri Nagaraja. Moreover, he was taken as a Part Time Lecturer only. The other case pertains to the regularization of Sri V. Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer vide G.O.Rt.No.311, Higher Education (IE) Department, Dated 16.01.2014. There is no similarity of that case with the present case of Dr. M. Nagaraja, Part-Time Lecturer, because in the W.P.No.3994/2006 filed by Sri V. Premachandrudu, the issue was that the Commissioner of Intermediate Education had not approved the appointment of Sri V. Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer in the aided post mainly, mentioning that there is a ban on filling up vacant aided posts vide Government Memo No.19753/PS-1/2004-1, dated: 25-11-2004, but as per G.O. Ms. No.35, Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated:27.03.2006 ban was not imposed for filling up of backlog SC vacancies and Sri V. Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer was directed to be appointed against the SC backlog vacancy by the Hon'ble Court. In the present case of Dr. Nagaraja, there is no such issue of applying the ban or backlog SC vacancy is involved.

                  (h) In the case of Sri Mohd. Naseeruddin Farooqui and three others were regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.269, Higher Education (CE/A2) Department, dated: 13.11.2014 in the aided posts, but they are all non-teaching staff and not Lecturers, the supreme Court in its SLP No.29508 to 29511 directed that these should not be taken as a precedent in any other Case. In the case of Dr. Nagaraja since he is a Lecturer, the G.O.Ms.No.328, Education Department, dated. 15.10.1997 has to be applied for regularizing his services in the aided post and he does not fulfill the conditions of G.O. Ms. No.328, Education Department, dated:15-10-1997 because of the following reasons:-

                  As per G.O.Ms.No.328, Education Department, Dated 15.10.1997, only those who have put in a service of 3 Academic Years as on 30-07-1991 or 5 Academic Years as on 25-11-1993 as the case may be and also continuing in service on the date of issue of these orders are eligible for regularization of service in terms of above said G.O. Dr. Nagaraja Masagani was appointed as Part Time Lecturer in the un-aided post in 1996, thus he is not eligible for regularization of service in terms of the G.O. Ms.No.328, Education Department, dated: 15.10.1997 and the said G.O. is not in force.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Government framed a policy vide G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997 to regularize the Part-Time Lecturers. As per the said G.O., all the eligible Part-Time Lecturers were regularized and the said G.O. was automatically annulled vide G.O. Ms.No.283, Education, dated 03.09.1999 after 6 months. Petitioner was not eligible as per the said G.O. The 3rd respondent College engaged the petitioner on Part-Time basis. The respondents have nothing to do with his appointment against un-aided vacancy. If any aided vacancy arises, College has to take permission from the competent authority by following the procedure complete the selection by giving opportunity to all the eligible candidates as per the Proceedings issued in Rc.No.4996/PC1-4/95, dated 18.09.1995 and obtain approval of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, for the selected candidates. Admittedly, management has not followed the said procedure. Hence the petitioner has no right to claim absorption into aided post.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the back door/illegal appointments are regularized by absorbing into regular vacancy, the other eligible candidates would be deprived of the employment. The orders as issued vide Government Memo No.2424/CE/A2/2017, Higher Education (CE) Department, dated 01.07.2017 quite legal and proper and does warrant to interfere under Article 226 of constitution of India. In view of the above, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of merits.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

13. Initially, the Writ Petition is filed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services by relaxing the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.12, Edn. (CE.I-2) Department, dated 10.01.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.35, High Education (CE.II-1), Department, dated 27.03.2006 with all consequential benefits by setting aside the Memo No.9038/CE-II.2/2013-2, dated 24.12.2013 issued by the 1st respondent and also consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent.

14. After hearing the matter, initially, this Court granted interim direction as follows:

                  "The request of the petitioner for regularization/absorption into aided post was rejected by the Government by order dated 24.12.2013 and the same was affirmed by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education vide proceedings dated 13.11.2014 which are challenged in this writ petition.

                  Learned Senior Counsel submits that rejection is on the ground that there was no compliance of the requirements before appointments are made as Lecturers by the Management of aided colleges. However, said condition was subsequently relaxed and appointments are granted to persons similarly situated to the petitioner. The orders of the Government passed to that extent are filed along with the writ petition book and reply affidavit and G.O.Rt.No.256, dt. 14.05.2012 is relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel.

                  After the bifurcation and formation of State of Telangana, two orders are passed by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.311, dated 16.12.2014 and G.O.Rt.No.269, dated 13.11.2014 which are similar to the claim of the petitioner and regularizations were granted.

                  Learned Senior Counsel also submits that petitioner is similarly situated and he is also entitled to be extended the same benefit. He further submits that the petitioner is due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation and if the benefit as prayed for is not extended even though vacancies are available in aided post, great prejudice would be caused.

                  Learned Government pleader opposes the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner's initial appointment was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed and it appears petitioner was appointed only on part time basis.

                  At this stage, no opinion is expressed on the rival contentions. However, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner duly taking note of the earlier orders passed by the Government referred to above. A decision to this extent be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

                  Accordingly, the W.P.M.P., is disposed of."

15. Subsequently, after issuing of the above interim direction, the respondent authorities issued proceedings vide Memo No.2424/CE/A2/2017, dated 01.07.2017 by passing the following Order:

                  “5. Regarding the three cases referred in the Judgment dt 07-04-2017 in WP No 14065/2016, one case as per G.O.Rt. No.256, Higher Education(CE.II-1) Department. dt. 11-5-2012 is regarding Smt. B.D.J. Satya Latha and 4 others wherein their appointments as Lecturer in the un-aided posts, were through duly constituted Selection Committee after obtaining approval from the Competent Authority. That is not the case in the appointment of Sri Nagaraja. Moreover, he was taken as Part Time Lecturer only. The other case pertains to the regularization of Sri V Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer vide G.O.Rt.No.311, Higher Education (IE) Department, dt 16-12-2014. There is no similarity of that case with the present case of Dr M Nagaraja, Part-Time Lecturer, because in the W. P. No. 3994/2006 filed by Sri V Premachandrudu, the issue was that the Commissioner of Intermediate Education had not approved the appointment of Sri V. Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer in the aided post mainly, mentioning that there is a ban on filling up vacant aided posts vide Government Memo No. 19753/PS-1/2004-1, dt. 25.11.2004, but as per G.O.Ms. No.35, Higher Education (CE II-1) Department, dt 27-03-2006 ban was not imposed for filling up of backlog vacancies and Sri V.Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer was directed to be appointed against the backlog vacancy by the Hon'ble Court. In the present case of Dr. Nagaraja, there is no such issue of applying the ban or backlog vacancy is involved.

                  6. In the third case, Sri Mohd. Naseeruddin Farooqui and three others were regularized vide G.O.Rt No 200, Higher Education (CE/AZ) Dept., dated 13-11-2014 in the aided posts, but they are all non-teaching staff and not Lecturers, like Sri M. Nagataja Moreover, they were selected through a proper selection procedure, where the nominee of the Government was also present, which is not the case in the appointment of Sri Nagaraja. In the case of Brn Nugaraja since he is a Lecturer, the G.O.Ms. No.328. Education Department, dt.15-10-1997 has to be applied also for regularizing his services in the aided post and he does not fulfill these conditions of OO Ms No.328, Education Department. dt. 15-10-1997 because of the following reasons:

                  “As per 0.0.Ms.No.328, Education Department, dt.15-10-1997, only those who have put in a service of 3 Academic Years as on 30-07-1991 or 5 Academic Years as on 25-11-1993 as the case may be and also continuing in service on the date of issue of these orders are eligible for regularization of service in terms of above said G.O. As he was appointed as Part-Time Lecturer in the un-aided post in 1996, thus he is not eligible for regularization of service in terms of the GOMs No.328, Education Department, dt. 15-10-1997.”

                  7. Hence, after careful examination of the above aspects/details/facts and circumstances and in compliance of the Order dt.07-04-2017 of the Hon'ble High Court W.P.M.P.No. 17550 of 2016 in W.P.No.14065 of 2016, the Government has arrived at a conclusion that regularization of the services of Sri Nagaraja in the aided post is not feasible for consideration. Hence, his claim is rejected.

16. A perusal of the above rejection orders, the respondent authorities rejected the petitioner’s case on the following grounds:

                  i) Petitioner is appointed for the said post as a Lecturer in Commerce purely on temporary basis.

                  ii) As per the G.O. Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997 certain conditions were imposed for regularization of service of Lecturers and Junior Lecturers working in private aided Degree/private aided Junior Colleges, which reads as follows:

                  “5. Only those who have put in service of three academic years as on 30.07.1991 or five academic years as on 25.11.1993 as the case may be and also continuing in service on the date of issue of these orders are eligible for regularization…”

17. The contention of the authorities is that the petitioner is not eligible for regularization of service in terms of the above said G.O.

18. After the above rejection order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed amendment petition vide W.P.M.P. No.42761 of 2017 in W.P.No.14065 of 2016 to amend the prayer of the Writ Petition as well as to add para Nos.5 to 9 after the 13th para in the main Writ Petition as additional grounds and the same was allowed on 22.11.2017.

19. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner retired from service as Vice Principal Head of the Department of Commerce, SD Signodia College, on 30.06.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.20954 of 1999 with regard to regularization of services of similarly situated persons as that of the petitioner. But the fact remains is that in the said Writ Petition also, the applicant put up more than 10 years of continuous service and also she was in service as on 25.11.1993. As per the above said observations, the petitioner is not entitled for the regularization of his services.

21. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the Full Bench Common Order in W.P.No.27295 of 1998, and batch, dated 09.11.2009 with regard to regularization of services. In the said Common Order, para No.13 reads as follows:

                  “13. We, therefore, hold that the cutoff date i.e. 25.11.1993 requiring to have minimum period of service as on 25.11.1993 is also applicable in G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997 and unless and until the petitioners fulfill the minimum period of required service as on 25.11.1993 as stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997, they are not entitled for regularization of their service.”

                  As per the said observation of the Full Bench in the Common Order, dated 09.11.2009, the petitioner has not fulfilled the minimum period of required service as on 25.11.1993. Moreover, in the present case, the petitioner’s appointment itself was in the year 1996. So, the completion of minimum period of required service does not arise. Moreover, subsequently, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued the G.O.Ms.No.283, dated 03.09.1999 with regard to the annulment of G.O.Ms.No.328, Education (CEIII) Department, dated 15.10.1997. The said G.O. reads as follows:

                  “In the first read above, Government approved a scheme for regularization of services of Part-time Lecturers / part-time Junior Lecturers working in private aided degree / private aided junior colleges. In the said G.O. Government have stipulated a time limit of 6 months for consideration of all case.

                  2. In the G.O. 2nd read above, Government have extended the time limit for the above scheme till 09.10.1998. This time limit is hereby further extended up to 31.10.1999.

                  3. As the purpose of the above schemes has been achieved, Government hereby annul the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms.No.328, Education (CEIII) Department, dated 15.10.1997, with immediate effect.”

22. In view of the above said observations and the G.O.Ms.No.283, dated 03.09.1999 indicates that the purpose of the scheme as per G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997 has been achieved. After that the said G.O.Ms.No.328 was annulled with immediate effect. When once the scheme is closed long back, the question of regularization of the petitioner’s service in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.328 does not arise. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the respondent No.1 vide Memo No.2424/CE/A2/2017, dated 01.07.2017. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.