SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12675

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J
Md. Shahiddin – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 21843/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T V V Koteswara Rao
For the Respondents: GP for Services III, GP for Services I

Employees engaged in irregular (not illegal) appointments who have rendered continuous service of ten years or more against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization of their services as a one-time measure and consequential benefits, as the State cannot exploit long-term ad-hoc employment to deny entitlements.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 14 and 21 - Regularization of services - Petitioner NMRs appointed before 1993, completed over three decades of service - Services characterized as irregular rather than illegal - Entitlement to regularization after 10 years of service based on the principle of one-time measure as established in Uma Devi (supra). (Paras 11, 15)

(B) Employment Law - Regularization - Distinction between irregular and illegal appointments - State cannot retain services on ad-hoc basis for decades and subsequently deny benefits or regularization - State expected to act as a model employer. (Paras 12, 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who were initially engaged as NMR Technical and Non-Technical Inspectors and Pump Mechanics before 1993, sought regularization of their services, citing long service and the availability of vacancies. The State contested this, arguing they did not meet the criteria set out in specific G.O.Ms. for regularization and were not recruited through standard open selection processes.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appointments, even if irregular due to lack of open competitive selection, were not illegal. Considering the petitioners completed more than 10 years of service in existing vacancies, they are entitled to regularization.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization of their services despite lacking formal selection procedures, based on the duration of their continuous employment and relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Ratio Decidendi: Following the principles in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, employees who have served for over 10 years in duly sanctioned posts without court intervention, whose appointments are irregular but not illegal, are entitled to be considered for regularization as a one-time measure.

Result: Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to regularize services from the date of completion of 10 years of service.

Table of Content
1. overview of claim for regularization based on lengthy nmr service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. summary of arguments regarding eligibility for regularization. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. legal standard for irregular versus illegal appointments under apex court rulings. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. final direction for regularization and conferral of service benefits. (Para 17 , 18)

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not regularising the services of the petitioners in their respective posts and existing vacancies as held by this Hon’ble High court in W.P.No. 24377/2007 as confirmed in the W.A. No. 782/2010 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and further direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in their respective posts As considered by the respondents Memo No. 1037429/PRR01/2019-ESTT-II dated 19.9.2025, which is issued in implementation of judgements in O.A.No. 1420/2001, O.A.No. 2108/2001 and judgment in W.P. No.15089/2019 and existing vacancies from the date of their initial appointment in terms of Judgment in W.P.No. 27217/2017 as confirmed in W.A.No. 782/2010 and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 31.12.2025 vide IA No.1 of 2025 in WP No.21843 of 2022.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not regularizing the services of the petitioners in their respective posts and existing vacancies as held by this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.24377/2007 as confirmed in theW.A.No.782/2010 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and further direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in their respective posts As considered by the respondent’s Memo No.1037429/PRR01/2019-ESTT-II dated 19.09.2025, which is issued in implementation of judgments in O.A.No.1420/2001, O.A.No.2108/2001 and judgment in W.P.No.15089/2019 and existing vacancies from the date of their initial appointment in terms of judgment in W.P.No.27217/2017 as confirmed in W.A.No.782/2010 and pass”

2. The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioners were initially appointed as NMR Work Technical and Non-Technical Inspectors and Watchman and Non-Technical Pump Mechanics before 25.11.1993 and they were granted Minimum pay Scales to their respective posts and posted in different places and other Government Welfare Programmes.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while the petitioners are working, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.747, dated 25.02.2005 wherein the Government has granted minimum time scale and D.A to the petitioners and other subsequent revision of pay scale were extended to the petitioners from time to time. Learned counsel submits that the 2nd Respondent sent proposal to the 1st Respondent vide Proc.CCT’s Ref.No.E4/839/2007, dated 04.08.2009, wherein it is categorically stated that there are 339 vacancies are available and proposed for regularization of services. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioners are getting all the benefits on par with the regular employees, but their services are not being regularized in spite of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgments as in the case of similarly situated persons as there are number of existing vacancies in the last grade category are avai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top