Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13076

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Cheemalapati, J
A. Lakshmi Narayana – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP(AT) No. 241 of 2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Munduru Eswar Brahmanand
For the Respondents: GP FOR Services IV, Munduru Eswar Brahmanand

Employees who have rendered over ten years of continuous service are entitled to be considered for regularization as a one-time measure; where the specific post qualification is lacking, they must be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Regularization of services of part-time employees - Petitioner appointed in 1988 as Sanitary Maistry - Claim for regularization rejected on grounds of lack of requisite qualifications - Courts have held that employees serving for over ten years should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. (Paras 12, 13)

(B) Service Law - Regularization - If employees lack qualifications for a specific post, consideration for regularization in suitable lower posts is permissible - Authorities directed to consider representation afresh taking into account long years of continuous service. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Sanitary Maistry in 1988 and sought regularization of services under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. Although other similarly situated employees were regularized, the petitioner's claim was rejected multiple times, initially due to qualification concerns and despite willingness to be considered for a lower post. The petitioner moved the High Court, asserting decades of continuous service.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner has served for over three decades, indicating the perennial nature of the work. Following Supreme Court precedents, the court noted that even where requisite qualifications for the current post might be lacking, the authority should evaluate the candidate for lower posts or general regularization based on the total period of service.

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's regularization claim due to alleged lack of qualification is sustainable, and whether the respondent is obligated to consider the petitioner for regularization in a lower post if necessary.

Ratio Decidendi: Drawing from Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court held that long-serving employees are entitled to be considered for regularization as a one-time exercise. If an employee who has served for over ten years lacks the prescribed qualification for the higher post, they should be considered for regularization in a suitable lower post.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation, with directions to the authority to pass orders within two months.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petitioner's long service and the legal challenge against the rejection of regularization. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding educational qualifications and the applicability of the regularization rule. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. examination of factual history and compliance with specific departmental orders for regularization. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. application of supreme court precedents regarding long-term service and eligibility criteria. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. court's directive for fresh representation and fair administrative consideration. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 241/2021

to declare the action of the Respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization vide proceedings in R.O.C.No.2495IPts.lA2/2007, dated 8-2-2016 issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Kurnool as wholly illegal, arbitrary, with a prejudiced mind, total non application of mind and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department dated 22.4.1994

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to condone the delay of 88 days in resubmitting the I.A. filed for restoration of W.P (AT) No.241 of 2021 and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to set aside the order of dismissal of WP(AT) No. 241 of 2021 dt. 7-12-2022 and restore the same on original file of this court and hear the matter on merits and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.Munduru Eswar Brahmanand

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

2.Munduru Eswar Brahmanand

The Court made the following:

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging rejection of the claim of the petitioner for regularization by the District Panchayat Officer, Kurnool vide ROC No.2495/Pts.IA2/2007, dated 08.02.2016.

2. The averments of the petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Maistry on 01.07.1988 in Kallur Gram Panchayat, Kurnool District and he was granted minimum time scale of pay vide proceedings dated 31.07.1999 along with other employees and in view of merger of Kallur Gram Panachyat into Kurnool Municipal Corporation, the petitioner along with others was handed over to Kurnool Municipal Corporation, but on the request made by petitioner and others, they were surrendered to Panchayat Raj Department and the petitioner was posted to Nandikotkur Gram Panchayat, later transferred to Bethamcherla Gram Panchayat and again to Nandikotkur Gram Panchayat and consequent to merger of Nandikotkur Gram Panchayat as Municipality, the petitioner was surrendered to District Panchayat Office, Kurnool and was posted to Peapully Gram Panchayat and has been continuing there and therefore, the petitioner has been continuously working as Sanitary Maistry from 01.07.1998. It is the further case of the petitioner that while he was working in Kallur Gram Panchayat, the District Panchayat Officer, Kurnool sent proposals to the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development vide proceedings dated 16.12.2002 for regularization of services of the petitioner along with others in the existing vacancies and vide G.O.Rt.No.617, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, dated 08.04.2005, the Government regularized the service of all other employees whose proposals were sent except the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7569 of 2007 before the Administrative Tribunal and the said O.A. was disposed of on 20.10.2009 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994 as w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13076

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHRavi Cheemalapati, JA. Lakshmi Narayana – AppellantVersusState Of Andhra Pradesh – RespondentWP(AT) No. 241 of 2021

Employees who have rendered over ten years of continuous service are entitled to be considered for regularization as a one-time measure; where the specific post qualification is lacking, they must be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Cheemalapati, J
A. Lakshmi Narayana – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP(AT) No. 241 of 2021