IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with prior court orders regarding employment regularization is mandatory, and failure to do so can result in contempt findings.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) :

Heard Sri T. Vishnu Teja, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 herein joined on NMR basis, in the employment of Water Resources Department, in the year 1981. Subsequently, their services were terminated by way of oral orders. Aggrieved by the said termination, the respondents 1 to 3 had approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.16030/1989, which was disposed of by the erstwhile High Court, setting aside the termination orders, with further directions to reinstate the respondents 1 to 3. Pursuant to these orders, the respondents 1 to 3 were appointed as NMRs vide proceedings dated 28.02.1990 and they had joined service on 01.03.1990 and had been working continuously since then.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 again approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.25032 of 2020, on the ground that G.O.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, provided for their regularization and absorption into the regular service of the Water Resources Department. It was their contention that the said G.O permitted regularization and absorption of daily wage/NMR employees who had been working continuously for a minimum period of five years by 25.11.2023 and were continuing to work since then. The respondents also relied upon earlier orders of the erstwhile High Court in W.P.No.27212 of 2017, W.P.No.1425 of 2019 and W.P.No.19361 of 2018 and batch wherein the High Court had directed regularization of similarly situated persons, irrespective of the cutoff date, if such persons had completed five years of service. The Executive Engineer, who was arrayed as respondent No.5, in the above writ petition, had filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, it was stated that the Executive Engineer was unaware of the circumstances in which the erstwhile High Court had granted orders in the above writ petitions. The Executive Engineer also stated that the respondents would not have any objection to approach the government for obtaining necessary orders of regularization of the services of respondents 1 to 3 herein, without insisting on the cut-off date of 25.11.1993, if the High Court were to pass such orders.

4. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by a Judgment dated 14.09.2022 directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the respondents 1 to 3 herein, for regularization of their service, in view of the judgments relied upon by the respondents 1 to 3, on completion of their respective periods of service of five years from the date of appointment.

5. After receipt of this judgment, the 7th respondent herein had passed orders bearing No.825/MAB/EC.II dated 31.10.2023. In this order, the 7th respondent, after recording that the respondents 1 to 3 herein had not completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993, which was the cut-off date prescribed in G.O.No.212, had recommended that the request of respondents 1 to 3 herein, for regularization of their services cannot be considered.

6. The appellant herein after receiving the said order of the 7th respondent herein, had passed a separate order dated 27.11.2023. In this order, the appellant after referring to various orders and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi Vs State of Karnataka had arrived at the finding that the respondents 1 to 3 herein are not entitled to regularization as they had not been working under duly sanctioned posts, after possessing requisite qualifications and that they had not been selected in an open competition exam, which was the requirement set out in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 at paragraph No.53.

7. Aggrieved by these proceedings, the respondents 1 to 3 herein moved this Court, by way of C.C.No.5422 of 2023. The respondents 1 to 3 contended that the orders of the appellant and the 7th respondent, rejecting their application