JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 196/writ petitioners.

2. This writ appeal is presented against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 4465 of 2020 whereby, holding that the issue in the writ petition is squarely covered by the common order in W.P. No. 19361 of 2018 and batch, dated 29.08.2019, in which the judgment of a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in U.V.S.R. Prasad and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, 2018 (2) ALD 282 (DB) was relied upon, directed the respondents therein to regularize the services of the petitioners forthwith subject to the petitioners possessing other requisite qualifications.

3. Mr. Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy submits that the learned single Judge recorded the name of Ms. S.V. Bhuvaneswari, Advocate, representing Ms. K. Anula, who was styled as standing counsel for the 3rd respondent (appellant herein)-Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, erroneously as Ms. S.V. Bhuvaneswari is not a counsel for the appellant and further, Ms. K. Anula had not taken charge as standing counsel of the appellant on the date when the impugned order came to be passed. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Page No. 78 of the writ appeal papers to contend that Ms. N. Anula had taken charge as standing counsel on 12.03.2020 F.N. Relying upon the cause-list dated 02.03.2020, it is submitted that the writ petition was listed as item No. 13 on that date and neither the name of standing counsel of Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, i.e. Mr. D. Gnaneswara Naidu nor the name of Ms. K. Anula, was reflected in the cause-list, and therefore, the observations made that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent did not refute the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the writ petition is squarely covered by the common order of this Court in W.P. No. 19361 of 2018 and batch, dated 29.08.2019, is not correct. It is submitted that the Case Details at page No. 75 of the writ appeal papers indicate that while filing date of the writ petition was 27.12.2019, registration was made on 19.02.2020 and the case was listed on 02.03.2020. On the very same day, the writ petition was disposed of, without granting opportunity to the appellant to file counter-affidavit.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Reddy that as per G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994, the persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years and were continuing as on 25.11.1993 are eligible for regularization, but the respondents/writ petitioners have not completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993 and therefore, they are not entitled to regularization. Mr. Reddy further submits that this case is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Manjula Bhashini and Others vs. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women's Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited and Another, (2009) 8 SCC 431.

5. Mr. Reddy further submits that by an order dated 10.03.2020, W.P. No. 3968 of 2020 was disposed of at the admission stage on the very first date of hearing, without giving any opportunity to Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University and on the appeal being W.A. No. 367 of 2020 preferred against the same, the Division Bench by order dated 10.02.2021, had set aside the order in the writ petition and remanded the matter to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration.

6. Accordingly, he submits that the order under challenge may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration.

7. Mr. M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 196/writ petitioners, submits that the order of the Division Bench dated 10.02.2021 in W.A. No. 367 of 2020 is not attracted in the fa