JUDGMENT

G.NARENDAR, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order, dtd. 19/3/2010, passed in O.A.No.4164 of 2007, whereby the Tribunal has been pleased to hold that the order of regularization i.e. under G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dtd. 22/4/1994, is prospective in nature and that the contention otherwise claiming that the petitioners are entitled for regularization from the initial date of appointment itself came to be rejected.

3. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.Manjula Bashini v. A.P. Women's Co-op. Finance Corporation Ltd., (2009) 8 SCC 431 to buttress its finding regarding the prospective nature of G.O.Ms.No.212, dtd. 22/4/1994. The said position is no more res integra in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.Manjula Bashini's case.

4. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the ruling rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5402 of 2017, which came to be disposed of by an order, dtd. 9/6/2017, whereby the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to uphold a similar interpretation of the G.O.Ms.No.212 by the Tribunal therein and was pleased to reject the Writ Petition preferred by the State.

5. That apart, it is seen that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has not looked into the conditions and criteria stipulated under the said G.O. The compliance of which alone would enable a part-time worker/N.M.R./daily wager or one engaged on consolidated pay for seeking regularization of services. Having looked into the said order, we see that this aspect has not been gone into and is of no assistance in determining the issue that arises for consideration in the instant Writ Petition.

6. The G.Os. of 1994 and 1997 came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.Manjula Bashini's case1 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has after detailed hearing and consideration observed as under:

"10. The relevant portions of the G.O. dtd. 22/4/1994 are reproduced below:

"The Government notice that appointing authorities of the institutions and establishments under the control of the State Government, local authorities, corporations owned and controlled by the State Government and other bodies established by the State Government grossly violated the instructions issued from time to time by the Government and appointed persons indiscriminately to various categories of services either on dailywage basis or temporary basis without there being a post and without being sponsored by employment exchange and without observing the rule of reservation to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes.

In most of the cases, the persons appointed for a specific work have been continued even after their need ceased. After a lapse of some time, all these appointees have approached the various courts and tribunals for regularisation of their services and courts and tribunals have been directing the State Government to regularise the services on the ground that they have a long service to their credit.

This practice has been causing considerable drain on the finances of the State Government. The Government have thought it imperative to prohibit the unauthorised and irregular appointments by a law in the public interest. Accordingly the State Government have enacted law regulating the appointments to public services and for rationalisation of the staff pattern and pay structure in the reference read above. This will streamline the recruitment along healthy lines, to enforce the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act in its true letter and spirit, to follow the rule of reservation enshrined in the Constitution with utmost strictness and to punish those who are guilty of violating the law. The above Act came