IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3720 OF 2006

The Principal Secretary to Govt. of  Andhra Pradesh & Ors.        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

P. Muttaiah       ...Respondent(s)

With   Civil Appeal No.6482 of 2008 @   S.L.P. (C) No.22521 of 2004 and Civil Appeal   No.6484 of 2008 @ S.L.P. (C) No.16586 of 2002

O  R  D  E  R

Civil Appeal No.3720 of 2006:

In  response  to  the  notification  issued  by  Commercial  Tax  Officer,

Mahaboobabad,  the  concerned  Employment  Exchange sponsored  the  name of  the

respondent  for  the  post  of  Sweeper-cum-Night  Watchman.   He  was  selected  and

appointed  with  effect  from 21.11.1984  on  temporary  basis.   After  some time,  his

service  appears  to  have  been  terminated  and  representation  made  by  him  for

reinstatement and regularization was rejected by District Collector, Warangal vide

his order dated 23.11.1996.  The respondent challenged that order in O.A. No.1671 of

1997, which was allowed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal [for short

“the Tribunal”] with a direction to the non-applicants (appellants herein) to reinstate

him and to consider his case for regularization  in  accordance  with  G.O. Ms. No.212

dated

....2/-

- 2 -

22.4.1994.  By  an  order  dated  14.11.1998,  the  State  Government  rejected  the

respondent’s  claim  for  regularization.  The  decision  of  the  Government  was

successfully challenged in O.A. No.8482 of 1998, which was decided on 21.7.1999. The

Tribunal referred to the order passed in O.A. No.1671 of 1997 and declared that the

applicant (respondent herein) is entitled to be regularized in service.  Accordingly, a

direction  was  issued  to  the  appellants  herein  to  regularize  the  service  of  the

respondent as Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman in the department against the vacancy

against which he was selected or in the alternative in the vacancy which was available

in the department. However, instead of complying with the direction given by the

Tribunal,  the  concerned authority  again  terminated  the  respondent’s  service  vide

order dated 8.2.2000.  O.A. No.1648 of 2000 filed by the respondent was allowed by

the Tribunal on 20.3.2001 along with VAM No.448 of 2000 and CA No.460 of 2000.    

The appellants challenged the last mentioned order of the Tribunal in Writ

Petition  No.15806  of  2001,  which  was  disposed  of  by  the  impugned  order.   The

Division Bench of the High Court directed that the order passed by the Tribunal for

regularization of the service of the respondent shall not be acted upon and his case

shall be considered strictly in terms of G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 and other

relevant Government orders and circulars in the light of the judgment rendered in

Secretary,  A.P.  Social  Welfare  Residential  Educational  Institutional  Society  vs.  P.

Venkata Kumari [(2001) 3 ALT 366].

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  

....3/-

- 3 -

In our opinion, the High Court could not have, without adverting to the

factual matrix of the case and orders dated 9.4.1998 and 21.7.1999 passed by the

Tribunal in O.A. Nos.1671 of 1997 and 8482 of 1998 respectively, which, as mentioned

above,  were  not  challenged  by  the  appellants,  upset  the  direction  given  for

regularization of the respondent’s service. The judgment in P. Venkata Kumari’s case

(supra) to which reference has been made in the order under challenge has no bearing

on  the  respondent’s  case  because  in  that  case  the  court  had  examined  the

constitutionality  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  (Regulation  of  Appointment  to  Public

Services  and  Rationalization  of  Staff  Pattern  and  Pay  Structure)  (Second

Amendment) Act, 1998 and upheld the same and that issue was not involved in the

application  filed  by  him before  the  Tribunal.   Therefore,  while  deciding  the  writ

petition filed against  the order of  the Tribunal,  the Division Bench was not at all

justified in relying upon P. Venkata Kumari’s case and directing that the Tribunal’s

order for regularizing the services of respondent shall not be acted upon.  Likewise,

there  was  no  warrant  for  directing  consideration  of  the  respondent’s  case  in

accordance with G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 and in the light of that judgment

ignoring the fact that issue of regularization of his service had been adjudicated by

the Tribunal on 9.4.1998 and 21.7.1999 and those orders had become final.  

Hence, we direct the State of Andhra Pradesh to carry out the directions

given by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.8482 of 1998 on 21st

July, 1999, within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy

of this order.   

....4/-

- 4 -

With the aforesaid direction, the civil appeal is disposed of.   

No costs.

Civil Appeal No.6482 of 2008 @ S.L.P.(C) No.22521 of 2004: Leave granted.  

Delay condoned.

O.A. No.499 of 2000 filed by the respondents for issue of a direction to the

appellants herein to regularize their services in accordance with the policy contained

in  the  G.O.  Ms.  No.212  dated  22.4.1994 was  disposed  of  by  the  Andhra  Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal [for short, “Tribunal”], by an order passed on 5th March,

2001.  The Tribunal referred to the judgment of Writ Petition No.7175 of 1997 and

order dated 23.2.2001 passed in O.A. No.6932 of 1999 and batch and directed the non-

applicants (appellants herein) to regularize the services of the applicants (respondents

herein) without insisting for existence of clear vacancy. The appellants had taken a

specific stand before the Tribunal that the conditions for regularization specified in

G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 are not satisfied on account of non-availability of

clear vacancies  in  the department,  but  without  considering the same the Tribunal

allowed the O.A. and directed regularization of the services of the respondents. The

writ petition filed by the appellants was disposed of by the High Court on 14th August,

2001 with a direction that the order passed by the Tribunal for regularization of the

services of the respondents shall not be acted upon.  However, the State was directed

to consider the cases of the respondents in terms of G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994

and other relevant Government orders and circulars in the light of the judgment in

Secretary,  A.P.  Social  Welfare  Residential  Educational  Institutional  Society  vs.  P.

Venkata Kumari [(2001) 3 ALT 366].

....5/-

- 5 -

Heard learned counsel for the parties.  

Since a categorical stand was taken by the appellants before the Tribunal

that no vacancy was available in the department for regularization of the services of

the  applicants  (respondents  herein)  and the same stand  was  reiterated before  the

Hon’ble High Court, the direction contained in the impugned order to consider the

cases  of  the  respondents  in  terms of  G.O.  Ms.  No.212  dated  22.4.1994 cannot  be

sustained.  The G.O. issued by the State Government provides for regularization of

services of daily wagers etc. only against  clear vacancies and as vacancies are not

available in the department, there can be no question of regularizing the services of

the respondents.   

Accordingly,  the  appeal  is  allowed  and  the  order  of  the  High  Court

directing to consider cases of  the  respondents  in  terms of  G.O. Ms.  No.212 dated

22.4.1994 and other Government orders and circulars and in the light of the judgment

in P. Venkata Kumari’s case (supra) is set aside. No costs.  

Civil Appeal No.6484 of 2008 @ S.L.P.(C) No.16586 of 2002: Leave granted.  

Delay condoned.

O.A. No.1130 of 2000 filed by the respondents for issue of a direction to the

appellants herein to regularize their services in accordance with the policy contained

in  the  G.O.  Ms.  No.212  dated  22.4.1994 was  disposed  of  by  the  Andhra  Pradesh

Administrative  Tribunal  [for  short,  “Tribunal”],  by  an  order  passed  on  23rd

February, 2001.  The Tribunal referred to the judgment of Writ Petition No.7175 of

1997 and directed the non-applicants (appellants herein) to regularize the services  of

the  applicants  (respondents herein)   without

....6/-

- 6 -

insisting for  existence of  clear vacancy. The appellants  had taken a specific  stand

before  the  Tribunal  that  the  conditions  for  regularization  specified  in  G.O.  Ms.

No.212  dated  22.4.1994  are  not  satisfied  on  account  of  non-availability  of  clear

vacancies in the department, but without considering the same the Tribunal allowed

the  O.A.  and  directed  regularization  of  the  services  of  the respondents.  The  writ

petition filed by the appellants was disposed of by the High Court on 14th August,

2001 with a direction that the order passed by the Tribunal for regularization of the

services of the respondents shall not be acted upon.  However, the State was directed

to consider the cases of the respondents in terms of G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994

and other relevant Government orders and circulars in the light of the judgment in

Secretary,  A.P.  Social  Welfare  Residential  Educational  Institutional  Society  vs.  P.

Venkata Kumari [(2001) 3 ALT 366].

Heard learned counsel for the parties.  

Since a categorical stand was taken by the appellants before the Tribunal

that no vacancy was available in the department for regularization of the services of

the  applicants  (respondents  herein)  and the same stand  was  reiterated before  the

Hon’ble High Court, the direction contained in the impugned order to consider the

cases  of  the  respondents  in  terms of  G.O.  Ms.  No.212  dated  22.4.1994 cannot  be

sustained.  The G.O. issued by the State Government provides for regularization of

services of daily wagers etc. only against  clear vacancies and as vacancies are not

available in the department, there can be no question of regularizing the services of

the respondents.   

....7/-

- 7 -

Accordingly,  the  appeal  is  allowed  and  the  order  of  the  High  Court

directing to consider cases of  the  respondents  in  terms of  G.O. Ms.  No.212 dated

22.4.1994 and other Government orders and circulars and in the light of the judgment

in P. Venkata Kumari’s case (supra) is set aside.  

No costs.  

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, November 05, 2008.