ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief:

“To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners as against the posts of work Inspectors and in not providing consequential promotions and other benefits as illegal arbitrary and violative of article 16 of the constitution and further direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners w e f completion of ten years of service as per the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and provide consequential benefits such as promotion etc as per the procedure adopted by the respondents in identical cases”

2. The brief facts of the case are that, Petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3 were appointed by the respondent on 22.10.1990, 10.11.1990 & 05.04.1991 respectively, as Work Inspectors and posted at Telugu Ganga Project. The petitioners were paid every month salaries basing on Standard Schedule of Rates. Since, then, the petitioners have been working as Work Inspectors without any break in service and they have completed ten years of service. It is contended that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi vs. State of Karnataka, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the State Government and their instrumentalities shall regularize the services of such employees who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts, subject to condition that they are continuing in service for all these years without there being only element and help of interim orders passed by the Courts or forums, as one time measure. The Petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3 filed the present writ petition to regularize their services w.e.f 22.10.2000, 10.11.2000 and 05.04.2001 respectively and for other consequential benefits such as promotion etc.

2. On behalf of the respondents, Respondent No.4 – Superintending Engineer TGP Circle, Nandyal, filed counter affidavit stating that, the State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 formulating a scheme for regularization and absorption of daily wage/NMR or consolidate pay employees. As per the said scheme, the persons who had been working continuously for a period of five years and were continuing as on 25.11.1993 were entitled for regularization subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. All the petitioners herein did not fulfill the conditions of five years and as such not entitled for regularization under the said scheme. It is submitted that, one of the conditions to be fulfilled is that the NMRs should have completed five years of completed service as on 25.11.1993 before being considered for regularizations with the prior concurrence from the Government whereas, that none of the petitioners have fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed therein and that their services were engaged on temporary basis to meet the exigencies of works at that point of time and that they are merely occupying the positions meant for Direct Recruits/Promotees without getting recruited through the prescribed procedure or proper selection.

3. It is further contended that, as per the judgment of the Hon’bel Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case, the petitioners are not entitled for service regularization even though they have completed ten years of service as on the date of judgment because they have not been appointed in clear vacancy and were never issued every appointment orders.

4. Further, it is contended that the petitioners are not satisfying the criteria laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and non- applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case, the plea of the petitioners for considering their claim for regularization of their services in the light of the above judgment do not arise and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. During hearing, Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that, the petitioners contend that the petitioners have been continuously working as