MEDISETTY SATYA SAI BABA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Petitioner was initially appointed as Village Forest Worker in the year 1997 and later converted as Forest Beat Officer against the sanctioned post on contract basis. Petitioner has been working continuously without any break and he was also extended minimum time scale vide G.O.Rt.No.117, dtd. 27/2/2009. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has formulated a Scheme for regularisation of contract persons and issued G.O.Ms.No.114, dtd. 21/10/2023, in terms of which, persons who are appointed as on 2/6/2014 in the Government Departments and continuing as on the date of issuance of the G.O. shall be entitled for regularisation subject to compliance of other conditions stipulated therein. In terms of said G.O., 3 rd respondent by proceedings, dtd. 7/2/2025, submitted list ofcontract personnel, who have been considered for the purpose of regularisation as per the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.114, dtd. 21/10/2023. Though name of petitioner has been shown at Sl.No.15, the reason for not completing the process of regularisation has been shown to be "pending disciplinary case", however, out of 151 contract persons, 119 have been regularized leaving balance of 32, which are also pending examination. Petitioner made representation, dtd. 5/3/2025, to Respondents 1 to 4 for consideration of his case for regularisation in the post of Technical Assistant (D.M. GradeII) on par with candidates whose names have already been sent for regularisation in pursuance to proceedings, dtd. 7/2/2025, issued by the 3 rd respondent, which is pending consideration. Petitioner states that mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings would not disentitle him for being considered for the purpose of regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.114, dtd. 21/10/2023, inasmuch as, the criteria laid down therein alone has to be taken into consideration while evaluating the eligibility or otherwise of candidate claiming for regularization.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would suffice for present if the representation made by the petitioner to the respondents is considered and appropriate orders to be passed.