Long-term service and clear vacancy at the time of absorption are critical for regularization, overriding initial appointment conditions, reinforcing employee rights against exploitation of irregular appointments.

JUDGMENT :

SUJOY PAUL, ACJ.

1. Sri K. Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Ms. M. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, for the respondents.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. This intra-court appeal takes exception to the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6552 of 2023 whereby, the writ petition was dismissed.

4. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the appellant’s name was forwarded by the employment exchange and he was appointed in the Department on 05.09.1986. Thereafter, the appellant worked continuously with the Department. W.P.No.6552 of 2023 was filed by the appellant seeking his regularization/absorption. The said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge by holding that the governing G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 clearly mentions that absorption shall be against a clear vacancy available at the time of appointment. Learned Single Judge opined that in the instant case, the appellant was not ‘appointed against a sanctioned/vacant post’ and he was appointed on temporary basis. The appellant has attained the age of 58 years as on the date of filing of the writ petition. Apart from that, since the appellant is enjoying the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 14.10.2019, he is not entitled for any relief.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no doubt the governing order is G.O.Ms.No.212 and it prescribes six conditions which need to be fulfilled by an employee who has worked for a minimum period of five years and continuing as on 25.11.1993, the singular point on which the appellant was non-suited is condition No.5 which deals with the availability of clear vacancy on the date of regularization/absorption and not on the date of his initial appointment. Learned Single Judge has erroneously interpreted condition No.5 of said G.O.Ms.No.212 and rejected the writ petition. Merely because the appellant approached the Court after several years, in a case of regularization, it is not an impediment for him. More he worked, more his right of consideration is ripened. The singular reason for rejection of the writ petition is bad in law. The grant of benefit under G.O.Ms.No.51 was also not an impediment for the purpose of considering the appellant for regularization/absorption. He placed reliance on Annexue-P8 to submit that there existed a vacancy which is evident by a certificate issued by Mandal Panchayat Officer on 29.10.2019. This document has escaped notice of learned Single Judge which shows that on the date of absorption there existed a vacancy.

6. Sounding a contra note, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, supported the impugned order and fairly submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.212 is the governing G.O. which prescribes the conditions upon fulfillment of which an employee can get the right of consideration for regularization/absorption. It is strenuously contended that on the date the appellant was appointed, he was not appointed against any clear and vacant post. Thus, learned Single Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the writ petition, more so, when the appellant is admittedly getting the benefit of enhancement of remuneration as per G.O.Ms.No.51 and approached the Court at the fag end of his career.

7. Learned counsel for the parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

8. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Before dealing with rival contentions of learned counsel