IMPORTANT POINT
Long service and practical experience can justify regularization of employees despite lacking formal educational qualifications, especially when such qualifications were not required at the time of initial appointment.

JUDGMENT :

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri K. Sreedhara Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities & Municipal Corporations, representing the petitioner-Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, Ms. K. Rajyalakshmi, learned counsel, representing the respondents No.1 and 2, through virtual mode. The respondents No.3 and 4 are represented by the learned Government Pleader for Services.

2. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation for the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to orders passed in OA No.6921 of 2012 dated 05.09.2012 and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders…..”

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 are the applicants in O.A.No.6921 of 2021 filed by them in Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’). The OA was filed to declare the action of the 3rd respondent therein, the present petitioner in issuing the rejection Orders in Rc.No.1902/2008-F3, dated 03.11.2011 and consequential proceedings in Rc.No.1902/2003-F1, dated 13.04.2012 and to set aside the same and declare the respondents 1 and 2 to be entitled for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994.

4. Respondents No.1 and 2 were appointed as Sweepers in the then Gandhi Prakasamnagar Gram Panchayat after conducting interviews for the said post by the competent authority under Section 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act 1964, vide Roc.No.138/79A1, dated 30.03.1981 on temporary basis on consolidated salary. Later on, the Gram Panchayat was merged into Rajamundry Municipality and the Municipality also fixed the scale of Rs.740/- and other allowances in favour of the said respondents, vide proceedings dated 14.03.1990. Later on, the Municipality became Corporation and the respondents became the employees of the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation.

5. The Government formulated a scheme and issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 for regular employment of the employees. According to the said G.O., the employees who were already working prior to the said G.O and had completed more than 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993 were entitled for regularization. The Municipal Corporation submitted proposal to the Commissioner and Director of the Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide proceedings Roc.No.1902/2003-F3, dated 16.09.2011 and recommended the case of the respondents 1 and 2 for regularization. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Memo No.12777/D2/2000 (Ex.P3), dated 20.10.2011 rejecting the case of the respondents 1 & 2 for absorption on the ground that there were no sanctioned posts available, and also rejected the request for grant of time scale. The Commissioner was, however, directed to examine the case of the respondents 1 & 2 under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and to send proposals to the Government.

6. The Corporation vide proceedings in Roc.No.1902/2005-F3, dated 03.11.2011, submitted information to the Government that the respondents 1 and 2 had no educational qualifications and were also not able to read and write. The Government vide Memo No.12777/D2/2000, dated 29.12.2011 rejected the proposal for regularization on the ground that the respondents did not possess the required qualification of read and write to hold the post of PH workers as per A.P.Last Grade Service Rules, 1992. Consequently, the petitioner-Corporation issued the proceedings in Roc.No.1902/2003-F1, dated 13.04.2012, rejecting the case of the respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that they did not have minimum qualification of ‘writing & reading’, as per rules.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents 1 and 2 filed O.A.No.6921 of 2012, which has been disposed of by the Tribunal vide Order dated 05.09.2012, with the following directions:

“8. A similar matter was adjudicated by this Tribunal in O.A.8365/2011 w