S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) QUESTIONING the orders dated 17-8-1999 and 21-2-2000 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 3645 of 1998 the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE fact of the matter lies in a narrow compass. ( 3 ) ON 12-11-1987 the petitioner was initially appointed as Lab Attender in Government Degree College, Nandyal and his services were regularized with effect from 12-11-1987 i. e. , the date of joining duty and he was kept under probation for a period of two years from 1-12-1988 i. e. , the date of regularization. Subsequently, he was declared as approved probationar vide order dated 3-2-1994 passed by the Principal, Government Degree College, Nandyal -1st respondent herein with effect from the date of appointment. ( 4 ) THE petitioner was also entrusted the teaching work since 1988 as he became qualified and eligible and he was entitled for promotion as Junior Lecturer/ Senior Lecturer as per the rules made in G. O. Ms. Nos. 460, Education (IE) Department, dated 18-10-1985 and 146. Education, dated 29-4-1989 respectively and has filed an Original Application vide OA No. 3773 of 1992 before the Learned Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction for promotion. ( 5 ) WHILE so, it is the case of the petitioner, that the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 20-5-1998 stating that he was only a part-time Lab Attender and that allowing him regular time scale and regularization of his services is irregular as per Government Orders G. O. Ms. No. 193, General Administration Department (Ser. A) Department, dated 14-3-1990, G. O. Ms. No. 212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22-4-3994, G. O. Ms. No. 1180, Education dated 5-8-1995 and D. O. Lr. RC No. 1989, IEc. 2/95 dated 30-10-1996, and directed him to show-cause as to why he should not be reverted as part-time Lab Attender on consolidated pay of Rs. 650/- only and why the excess amount paid to him due to allowing regular pay scale should not be recovered. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the notice dated 20-5-1998 the petitioner filed OA No. 3645 of 1998 before the learned A. P. Administrative Tribunal and the learned Tribunal by the judgment dated 17-8-1999 in OA Nos. 3066 of 1995 and Batch (including OA No. 3645 of 1998) disposed of the original applications observing:. . . . ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the notice dated 20-5-1998 the petitioner filed OA No. 3645 of 1998 before the learned A. P. Administrative Tribunal and the learned Tribunal by the judgment dated 17-8-1999 in OA Nos. 3066 of 1995 and Batch (including OA No. 3645 of 1998) disposed of the original applications observing:. . . . We, therefore, hold that the so-called part-time Lab Attenders who were appointed on ad-hoc basis and later converted into temporary employees are entitled for regularization under G. O. Ms. No. 212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22-4-1994 and such of those persons who fulfil the conditions are entitled for regularization and payment of salary in accordance with the pay fixed for Lab Attenders by the PRC for a regular Lab Attender from the date of regularization and absorption. Such of those persons who do not fulfil the conditions and who are governed by the interim orders of this Court are entitled to be continued as adhoc employees only, but they are entitled for payment of minimum in the time scale of pay of Lab Attender as long as they discharge the duties of full-time employees. We are of the considered view that any regularization order passed by the Principal of the college contrary to G. O. Ms. No. 193, dated 14-3-1990 is not sustainable and the right to cancel such order is available to the appointing authority, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22-4-1994. xxxx in this batch of OAs, the employers viz. , the Principals of the Colleges as well as the Director of Intermediate Education decided to engage all these qualified applicants as Lab Attenders in pursuance of the creation of Lab Attender posts by the Government and also decided to appoint them under Rule 10 (a) (i) of A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules presumably under the impression that such regularization can be ordered under G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994. As stated earlier, the provisions of G. O. Ms. No. 193, dated 14-3-1990 are not fulfilled by these applicants. If the legal formalities are not strictly enforced, diverse from the realities of the fact situation of the case, these applicants have to shell down the salaries received by them from the respondents and that would be travesty of justice as law has to be administered with equity as observed in the aforesaid judgment. If the legal formalities are not strictly enforced, diverse from the realities of the fact situation of the case, these applicants have to shell down the salaries received by them from the respondents and that would be travesty of justice as law has to be administered with equity as observed in the aforesaid judgment. We are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if these applicants are paid the salaries attached to the post of Lab Attenders in pursuance of the orders issued to them under Rule 10 (a) (i) of A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. However, the respondents are at liberty to recover these amounts from the concerned officers who allowed these irregular regularizations. All the OAs are disposed of accordingly. All the MAs and VMAs stand disposed of in view of the disposal of the main OAs. and all the CAs are ordered to be closed. No costs. ( 7 ) ON being mentioned by the petitioner s Counsel that the case of the applicant in OA No. 3645 of 1995 is different from the cases of the other applicants and in the OA he prayed for a declaration that his initial appointment was on regular basis as Laboratory Attender and that he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange concerned and underwent regular selection process through District Selection Committee and as such the OA has to be separated from the batch of cases and disposed of separately, the learned Tribunal rejected the same in its order dated 21-2-2000 observing: as seen from the records, the name of the applicant in this OA is not sponsored by the Employment Exchange as required under G. O. Ms. No. 193, General Administration (Ser. A) Department dated 14th March, 1990. He appeared for interview based on the directions issued by the Tribunal. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the judgment rendered by us in OA No. 3066 of 1995 and Batch squarely cover this case also. The request of the applicant to separate this OA from OA No. 3066 of 1995 and Batch is thus not tenable. Consequently the letter tiled by the applicant s Counsel is rejected. ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the said orders of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying for the following reliefs :. . . The request of the applicant to separate this OA from OA No. 3066 of 1995 and Batch is thus not tenable. Consequently the letter tiled by the applicant s Counsel is rejected. ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the said orders of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying for the following reliefs :. . . to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not treating the services of the petitioner as regular Lab Attender since the date of his initial appointment i. e. , 12-11-1987, as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice, by setting aside the judgment of the Hon ble A. P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 3645 of 1998 dated 17-8-1999 and the consequential order dated 21-2-2000 in OA No. 3645 of 1998 insofar as its finding that the petitioner was not regularly appointed as Lab Attender under the respondents and consequently to declare that the petitioner is appointed as Lab Attender on regular basis under the respondents and consequently direct the respondents that the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. Submissions : submissions on behalf of the petitioner: ( 9 ) MR. G. S. Rao, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the action of the respondents in treating the service of the petitioner as part-time Lab Attender from 12-11-1987 to 22-1-1999 is illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel further submits that the judgment of the learned Tribunal insofar as the finding that the appointment of the petitioner was not regular, is illegal, arbitrary and against the records. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel also submits that though the learned Tribunal observed on the impugned order that all the applicants therein were appointed on daily wage basis or on consolidated pay, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was appointed on regular basis in a sanctioned vacancy, after undergoing due process of selection conducted by the District Selection Committee, which conducted written test and interview. ( 11 ) CONTENDING that the observations made by the learned Tribunal in its order dated 21-2-2000 to the effect that the petitioner was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange as required under G. O. Ms. No. 193, General Administration (Ser. A) Department, dated 14-3-1990, but he appeared for interview based on the directions issued by the Tribunal and hence the judgment rendered in OA No. 3066 of 1995 and Batch squarely cover the case of the petitioner in OA No. 3645 of 1998 as illegal and arbitrary, the learned Counsel submits that in fact the petitioner was constrained to approach the learned Tribunal by filing RP No. 4765 of 1987 when his case was not considered for interview but his juniors in Employment Exchange were called for interviews held for the post of Lab Attender and in the said RP the learned Tribunal has directed the Employment Exchange concerned to sponsor the name of the petitioner for interview if his juniors were already sponsored. Since juniors to him were already sponsored for interviews, the Employment Exchange also sponsored his name for interview and subsequently the District Selection Committee selected him. ( 12 ) MR. G. S. Rao contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly construed that G. O. Ms. No. 193, General Administration (Ser. A) Department, dated 14-3-1990, shall apply to the petitioner s case and the said GO is only applicable to those candidates who are appointed on daily wage or ad hoc basis. The petitioner has been appointed on a regular vacancy and therefore the same is not applicable. In fact, the learned Counsel submits, the said GO was issued much !ater to the date of appointment of the petitioner i. e. , 12-11-1987. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel also submits that the petitioner possess higher qualifications of 1vo (Randb) and Diploma in Civil Engineering (LCE) and, in fact, the college authorities directed him to take theory and practical classes for Randb course students and he was also put in-charge of clinic lab. The petitioner is entitled for promotion as Junior Lecturer/senior Lecturer/instructor, submits the learned Counsel, under G. O. Ms. No. 460, Education, dated 18-10-1985 and G. O. Ms. No. 146, Education, dated 20-4-1989 and even the Principal of the College has recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion. The petitioner is entitled for promotion as Junior Lecturer/senior Lecturer/instructor, submits the learned Counsel, under G. O. Ms. No. 460, Education, dated 18-10-1985 and G. O. Ms. No. 146, Education, dated 20-4-1989 and even the Principal of the College has recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion. ( 14 ) WE have dismissed the writ petition on 28-6-2001 duly upon taking into consideration the submissions made by Ms. Marie Desai, the learned Government Pleader for Services-T, that the services of the petitioner have already been regularized on 23-1-1999. The petitioner, however, has filed a review application submitting that his case has not been fully considered by the respondents and the Government Order dated 23-1-1999 is not applicable to the facts of the case. In view of the statements made by the petitioner s Counsel, on 21-9-2001 we re-called our order dated 28-6-2001 and posted the matter for orders on 28-9-2001. The writ petition was again heard on merit. Findings : ( 15 ) APPOINTMENTS in the State services must be done having regard to the recruitment rules framed as also keeping in view the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The name of the petitioner was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange as required under G. O. Ms. No. 193 dated 14-3-1990. ( 16 ) THE appointment of the petitioner being not in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as also being contrary to the recruitment rules must be held to be a nullity. It is now a well settled principle of law that status of a person cannot be changed unless there exists a statutory provision and that regularization is not a mode of recruitment. The appointment of the petitioner therefore was through back door. The status of the petitioner was changed only from the date for all practical purposes, when his services had been regularised. ( 17 ) IN V. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Govt. of A. P. , AIR 1995 SC 586 , the Apex Court following the decisions in B. N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 3 SCR 937 , and R. N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaiah. , (1972) 2 SCR 799 , has clearly held that the seniority starts from the date of regularisation. of A. P. , AIR 1995 SC 586 , the Apex Court following the decisions in B. N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 3 SCR 937 , and R. N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaiah. , (1972) 2 SCR 799 , has clearly held that the seniority starts from the date of regularisation. ( 18 ) IN Debasis Dutta v. State of West Bengal, Cal LT 1998 (2) 398, decision of the Apex Court in Excise Superintendent v. K. B. N. Visweswara Rao, 1996 (3) SCC 216, was distinguished and it was observed that no recruitment, can be made in violation of the guidelines issued by the Director of School Education or any order or direction made by the State Government of by the Managing Committee of the School in that case. ( 19 ) THE petitioner in the instant case therefore was entitled to regular scale of pay when his services were regularised and not prior thereto. ( 20 ) REFERENCE may also be made in this connection to Dr. Meera Massy v. S. R. Mehrotra, 1998 (3) SCC 88 . ( 21 ) IT appears that the services of the petitioners have been regularised pursuant to the order dated 23-1-1999 in terms whereof and whereunder G. O. 193 was superseded. The order of regularisation was also issued in terms of the G. O. 146. ( 22 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be entitled to scale of pay as Lab Attendant from the date of his joining cannot be accepted. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.