WP(AT)/241/2021 of A.LAKSHMI NARAYANA Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 23 March 2026

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 RC,J

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 RC,J

regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994 as was done in case of other employees vide G.O.Rt.No.617, dated 08.04.2005, if he fulfills the conditions stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 taking into consideration his eligibility and seniority. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter the District Panchayat Officer, Kurnool sent proposals to the Government through the Commissioner, Panchayt Raj & Rural Development vide letter dated 29.10.2012 for regularization of the services of the petitioner and other candidates, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner is willing for regularization of his services as attender also and for no action the petitioner filed C.A.No.254 of 2014 in O.A.No.7569 of 2007 and when the said C.A. came up, the Administrative Tribunal took serious note of non-compliance of its order and posted the matter for compliance and having learnt of it, the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development returned the proposal submitted by District Panchayat Officer with a direction to re-examine the proposal in terms of order passed by the Tribunal and G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 22.04.1994 and report compliance vide its letter dated 06.02.2016 and thereafter the District Panchayat Officer rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is not having requisite qualification. It is the further case of the petitioner that services of many others, who do not possess minimum educational qualifications, were regularized, and more over the petitioner had given RC,J

willingness for regularizing his services as attender, which was also mentioned in the proposal submitted by District Panchayat Officer and further the Government has power to relax the Rules or to order regularization of services in any suitable post as per his qualifications. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per G.O.Ms.No.99, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Estt.VIII) Dated 09.02.1983, the qualifications prescribed are that the candidate must pass VII class, must able to read and write any one of the languages of the District in which he is to be employed, whereas the petitioner passed intermediate, therefore, rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he did not have requisite qualifications is untenable.

3. The respondent no.4-District Panchayat Officer, filed counter affidavit denying the material averments of the petition contending that proposals were submitted to the Government for regularization of the services of certain part time and NMR employees including the name of the petitioner, but the name of the petitioner was not considered by the Government since he did not possess requisite qualification and later pursuant to the orders passed in O.A.No.7569 of 2007, again proposal was submitted to Government to examine the name of the petitioner clearly mentioning therein that the petitioner is willing to consider his name to the lower post and accordingly the RC,J

Commissioner for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development again examined the proposal and returned the same to District Panchayat Officer to examine and take necessary action and accordingly the District Panchayat Officer re- examined the issue and rejected the claim of the petitioner by speaking orders narrating the reasons under which the petitioner is not eligible for considering his name for regularization. It is further contended in the counter that the petitioner himself had accepted that he is not having requisite qualification and the petitioner himself claims that Government is having power to relax the rules or to order regularization of services in any suitable post as per his qualification and this itself speaks that the District Panchayat Officer cannot relax the Rules but for the Government and since the Government has not considered the name of the petitioner for regularization, the request of the petitioner for regularization of the services has rightly been rejected. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard Sri Munduri Eswar Brahmanand, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV for respondents.

5. Munduri Eswar Brahmanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that at the time of RC,J

appointment of the petitioner as Non Muster Roll Sanitary Inspector in the year 1988 and by then G.O.Ms.No.99, Panchayat Raj Department (Estt.VIII), dated 09.02.1983 was in vogue, as per which the qualification for appointment of Sanitary Maistry was that the candidate must have passed VII Class and must be able to read and write languages or any one of the languages of the District in which he is to be employed and therefore, the subsequent change of Rules upgrading the qualification are not applicable to the petitioner. He would further contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions categorically held that the authorities cannot take the objection that the employee has not having qualification after continuing him in the said post for several years and therefore, the regularization proposals of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that he did not have requisite qualification. He would further contend that since the petitioner has been continuing in service as Non Muster Roll having requisite qualification at the time of his appointment, his service has to be regularized in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and others1, however, the District Panchayat Officer upon erroneous view of the matter that the petitioner does not possess requisite qualification passed the impugned order rejecting the

1. (2006) 4 SCC 1

RC,J

proposal for regularization and the said order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit would contend that since the petitioner himself admitted that he did not have requisite qualification and hence expressed his willingness to consider regularization of his services in any lower post and further the Government only have power to relax the Rules regarding qualification and since the Government did not consider the proposal for regularizing the services of the petitioner by relaxing Rules, even though the willingness of the petitioner has clearly been mentioned therein, the application of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the District Panchayat Officer and the said order does not require interference of this Court. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Non Muster Roll Sanitary Maistry in the year 1988. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 for regularization of services of the persons who worked

RC,J

continuously for a minimum period of five (05) years and are continuing on 25.11.1993 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions and pursuantly a proposal was submitted to the Government by the District Panchayat Officer, Kurnool for regularization of services of the petitioner (shown at Sl.No.60) along with others, thereafter vide G.O.Rt.No.617, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, dated 08.04.2005, the Government had only chosen to regularize the services of 33 employees only out of total list of part time employees and the petitioner is not one among the 33 employees whose services were regularized. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A. The said O.A. vide O.A.No.7569 of 2007 was disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 as was done in the case of other employees by G.O.Rt.No.617, dated 08.04.2005, if he fulfills the conditions imposed under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994.

9. The material would further indicate that Commissioner for Panchayat Raj &Rural Development, A.P., Hyderabad once again examined the proposal for considering the name of the petitioner and returned the said proposal to the District Panchayat Officer to examine and take necessary action as there are certain lapses in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 prescribed for regularization of part time employees. Pursuantly, the District Panchayat RC,J

Officer once again verified in terms of provisions laid down under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and passed the impugned order rejecting regularization the services of the petitioner vide the impugned order.

10. The reason for rejection as could be perceived from the impugned order is that the petitioner was not possessing requisite qualification. It is also relevant here to note that while sending the proposal of the petitioner for second time, the willingness of the petitioner to the effect that his name may be considered for the lower post and the said willingness was specifically mentioned in the said proposal.

11. G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 stipulates fulfillment of as many as six (06) conditions for regularization of services and one of the conditions is that the persons appointed should possess the qualifications prescribed as per Rules in force as on the date from which his/her services have to be regularized.

12. In State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari2 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “8.Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] directed that such

2. (2010) 9 SCC 247

RC,J

one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10-4-2006).

9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi

(3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.

10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one- time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi

(3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , are so considered.

11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground RC,J

that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] ] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] as a one-time measure.

12. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] . The appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of the respondents for regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] or thereafter.

13. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of the respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs to be given, in view of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, as a general one-time regularisation exercise, to find out whether there are any daily-wage/casual/ad hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfil the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] . If they fulfil them, their services have to be regularised. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of Respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one-time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfil the requirements of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years' service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularisation in suitable lower posts”

(emphasis supplied)

13. As per the observations made in M.L.Kesari (supra2), one should possess educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their RC,J

appointment and even if it is found that the person lacking educational qualifications at the time of their appointment then also they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts.

14. Further, in M.L.Kesari, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized that work is of a perennial or regular nature when employees perform essential, continuous, and ongoing tasks for an organization for many years, rather than sporadic or temporary duties.

15. Since the service of the petitioner is being continued since 1988, it can safely be held that his service is of perennial nature, lest he should not have been continued for such a long period of more than three (03) decades.

16. At this juncture, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV contended that the petitioner did never submit representation explaining the authorities his possessing requisite educational qualifications and for the first time he came forward with a contention that he possess intermediate qualification and in case the petitioner submits any representation with supporting documents, the authorities would examine the issue afresh and pass suitable orders. The contention of the Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner did not make any representation to the authorities, at this length of time, is though incomprehensible, since the issue involved in this matter relates to service, to meet the ends of justice and RC,J

to achieve a justifiable outcome to a long drawn legal battle, this Court inclines to accept the proposal of the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

17. In view of the above, this court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition without going into further merits of the matter.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the authorities along with all the documents that are necessary for effective consideration of the issue within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such submission of representation, the authorities shall consider the issue afresh and pass suitable orders keeping in view the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above regarding regularization of services of part time employees within a period of two (02) months therefrom. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 24th March, 2026.

RR