Regularisation can only be done against sanctioned posts, and contempt court cannot issue substantive directions.

ORDER

1. IN ALL THE ABOVENOTED CIVIL APPEALS, SINCE THE SAME CONTROVERSY IS INVOLVED, THEY HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER.

2. IT APPEARS THAT SOME EMPLOYEES OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH SCHEDULED CASTES FINANCE CORPORATION HAD MOVED THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FOR THEIR REGULARISATION IN SERVICE. THAT RELIEF WAS GRANTED BUT THAT ORDER SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN IMPUGNED BY FILING SLPS IN THIS COURT. THE MATTER CAME UP FOR DISPOSAL ON 6-2-1998. A THREE-JUDGE BENCH OF THIS COURT DISPOSED OF SLPS (C) NOS. 27275-77 OF 1995 PROVIDING THAT THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO HAD COMPLETED FIVE YEARS CONTINUOUS SERVICE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR REGULARISATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF GOMS NO. 212 DATED 22-4-1994. THEREAFTER, IT APPEARS THAT SOME OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO ARE PARTIES IN THE APPEALS IN HAND, MOVED THE HIGH COURT FOR THEIR REGULARISATION. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT IN ITS ORDER QUOTED THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT DATED 6-2-1998 WHICH PROVIDED THAT THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO HAD COMPLETED FIVE YEARS CONTINUOUS SERVICE AND FULFIL OTHER CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN GOMS NO. 212/22-4-1994 WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR REGULARISATION, GAVE DIRECTIONS ACCORDINGLY. A PERUSAL OF GOMS NO. 212 DATED 22-4-1994 SHOWS THAT IT CONTAINS CONDITION (5) WHICH READS AS UNDER:

"(5) ABSORPTION SHALL BE AGAINST CLEAR VACANCIES OF POSTS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO BE CONTINUED AS PER WORKLOAD EXCLUDING THE VACANCIES ALREADY NOTIFIED TO THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE."

3. THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANTS FOR THEIR REGULARISATION, HOWEVER, WAS TURNED DOWN BY GORT NO. 651 DATED 23-10-1998. THIS ORDER INDICATES THAT THE POSTS AGAINST WHICH REGULARISATION WAS BEING SOUGHT WERE NOT SANCTIONED A POSTS BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY SINCE IT IS INDICATED THAT POSTS COULD BE SANCTIONED ONLY BY THE GOVERNMENT. THAT BEING THE POSITION, THE REQUEST FOR

REGULARISATION WAS REJECTED.

4. AGGRIEVED BY THE REJECTION OF THE REQUEST FOR REGULARISATION IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT ON 17-8-1998, THE EMPLOYEES MOVED CONTEMPT PETITION. THE LEARNED JUDGE WHILE DEALING WITH B THE CONTEMPT MATTER AT ONE PLACE OBSERVED THAT THE PETITIONERS SHOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN WORKING AGAINST THE CLEAR VACANCY BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS ALSO DIRECTED THEREAFTER, "THE RESPONDENTS, PARTICULARLY THE GOVERNMENT IS DIRECTED TO SANCTION THE POST IN A.P. SCHEDULED CASTES FINANCE CORPORATION OF EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT SO THAT THE PETITIONERS CAN BE ABSORBED ON PERMANENT POSTS ... ". THE CONTEMPT PETITION WAS ULTIMATELY CLOSED WITH A DIRECTION TO THE C RESPONDENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER PASSED ON THE DATE.

5. THE CORPORATION, THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION, THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND SOME OTHERS PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMPT MATTER. THE DIVISION BENCH WHILE DEALING WITH THE MATTER OBSERVED THAT ONCE A DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO REGULARISE THE EMPLOYEES, THE CORPORATION HAD NO OPTION BUT TO REGULARISE THE SERVICES OF THE EMPLOYEES. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CONTEMPT JUDGE WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE. WE, HOWEVER, FIND THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THE CONTEMPT JUDGE WAS COMPETENT OR HAD THE JURISDICTION AT ALL TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS IN THE CONTEMPT PETITION TO THE AUTHORITIES OR TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO SANCTION THE POSTS. SINCE THE APPEALS HAD ALSO BEEN HELD TO BE NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN SOME CASES APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED DIRECTLY UNDER ARTICLE 136 IN THIS COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMPT MATTER. SOME OTHER APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN CONTEMPT APPEAL. ALL THE APPEALS ARE INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE BUNCH. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE CORPORATION AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PREFERRED BELATED WRIT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY T