S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to filing of the writ applications are as follows : Pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendations of a One-Man Committee known as v. R. Reddy Committee , Vocational Training courses were introduced in the State from the year 1979-80 onwards. The Central government offered 75% of total expenses of salaries. According to the State, the scheme is purely temporary and all the posts sanctioned for Vocational Courses were under plan and every year according to the need they were directed to be continued. It is not in dispute that during the year 1994-95, certain posts were converted into non-plan posts by reason of G. O. Rt. No. 214 dated 11-10-1985 and the number of posts sanctioned earlier had been reduced. The writ petitioners herein were appointed in the years 1988 and 1989. On or about 20th April 1989, g. O. Ms. No. 146 was issued in terms whereof Ad hoc Rules were framed governing the posts of Vocational Training courses, including the post of Lab attenders, to which post the petitioners were appointed. The said Rules, inter alia, provide that the Principals will be the appointing authority for the posts of Lab attenders. Thereafter, a policy decision was adopted by the State by issuing G. O, ms. No. 193 General Administration (Services A) Department, dated 14-3-1990 whereby and whereunder temporary daily wage appointments against civil posts in government service were sought to be regularized on a regular scale of pay. Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, which are relevant for the purpose of these cases read thus:" (4) This shall be in clear vacancies available in that unit of appointment in which the candidate is working; (6) Candidates shall be eligible for appointment under the rules pertaining to local candidature, qualifications, age, the rule of special representation in favour of scheduled Castes, Scheduled tribes, Backward Classes etc. ; (7) Such daily wage appointees have been appointed by the competent appointing authority and not by any other authority; (8) This shall be applicable only in cases where temporary/casual appointment is authorised by the government specifically in relaxation of ban on appointments; (9) Where the prescribed procedure has been followed for appointment; (10) Candidates have been appointed through the employment exchange or where in cases covered by g. O. Ms. No. 1261, L. E. N. and T. E. Department, dated 8-4-1984, employment exchange was not notified of the vacancy and advertisement was made in papers and selection was made on merits; (11) Where they have worked for more than 6 months continuously without break except for break due to holidays;"on or about 1-8-1990, the petitioners were given the benefit of regular scale of pay of rs. 740-1150/-, which was enhanced to rs. 780-1275/- on 23-1-1991. The Regional director, however, directed the Principal to revert the writ petitioners to a consolidated salary of Rs. 650. 00 by an order dated 27-4-1993. Pursuant thereto they were reverted on or about 30th April 1993. ( 3 ) APPLICATIONS having been filed before the A. P. Administrative Tribunal questioning the said orders, interim order staying the operation thereof had been passed on 4-5-1993. The said Original applications were allowed by Judgment dated 10-6-1993 with liberty to the respondents to take action upon compliance of the principles of natural justice. Pursuant to the said judgment passed by the learned tribunal, show-cause notices were issued on 20-5-1994 whereafter, the petitioners filed explanation thereto in June 1994. Yet again, another show-cause notice was issued stating that the Principal was not the competent authority, on 5-7-1994. The petitioners in their explanation, inter alia, stated:"the instructions of Director of Higher education dt. 28-10-1993 governed the situation prior to the issuance of g. O. Ms. No. 779 dt. 25-9-1986 and g. O. Ms. No. 1413 dt. 21-10-1987. The said instructions cannot hold the field as the issue of the said G. Os. Therefore 1 was entitled for the salary in the time-scale right from the date of my appointment. (1) I possessed the qualifications prescribed for the post. (2) I was sponsored by the Employment exchange. (3) I was subjected to a process of selection. (4) 1 was appointed by the Competent authority and (5) The fact of my selection was communicated to the employment Exchange. (1) I possessed the qualifications prescribed for the post. (2) I was sponsored by the Employment exchange. (3) I was subjected to a process of selection. (4) 1 was appointed by the Competent authority and (5) The fact of my selection was communicated to the employment Exchange. In view of the above facts, I was entitled to be treated as a regular employee right from the date of my appointment. Rightly benefit of g. O. Ms. No. 193 was given to me. As I was given regular time-scale, I have not left the department. I have foregone the opportunities of better employment even in other departments. "however, by order dated 4-8-1994, they were reverted to a consolidated salary of rs. 650/ -. Various Original Applications were filed by some persons aggrieved by the said orderbefore the Tribunal being o. A. Nos. 4131 of 1994, 1401 of 1998 and 1476 of 1996 respectively. ( 4 ) THE question which arose before the learned Tribunal was as to whether the petitioners satisfied the conditions laid down in G. O. Ms. No. 193. But, on a misapprehension that they had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as their initial appointment was illegal, their services could not be directed to be regularized. ( 5 ) MS. Meri Desai, learned Government pleader, Services-1, submitted that by issuing various Government orders, the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 26214/1998,24968/ 1998, 19793/1999, 9137/1998, 28418/1998 had been directed to be regularized in service as the State had taken policy decision, having regard to the continuity in their service by the concerned Lab assistants that the principles embodied in g. O. Ms. No. 212 dated 22-4-1994 shall be applied. In this view of the matter, the aforementioned writ petitions have become infructuous. ( 6 ) THE question, however, which remains to be considered in the remaining writ petitions is as to whether the orders impugned before the Tribunal being dated 4-8-1994, was illegal. ( 7 ) THE said order is in the following terms:"after considering all the facts and reasons, the undersigned has come to conclusion that the explanation offered by the individual is found to be quite unsatisfactory and is not forceful enough to rebut the points raised in the show-cause notices for the following reasons. (1) The Director of Intermediate education, A. P. , Hyderabad, issued orders in Proce. Rc. (1) The Director of Intermediate education, A. P. , Hyderabad, issued orders in Proce. Rc. No. 2856/ic4/ 85, dt. 28-10-85 for payment of consolidated pay of Rs. 650. 00 only to the part-time Lab Attenders appointed against the posts sanctioned in G. O. Ms. No. 460, dt. 18-10-85. There were no instructions from the Director for filling up posts on regular basis. (2) For appointment to the posts carrying a regular scale of pay, one is to be selected by the Dist. Selection Committee. But they were not selected by the Dist. Selection committee as their appointment was of part-time nature. Hence it is finally ordered that sri P. Chalapati Rao/sri V. B. Naga raju/sri G. V. Satyanarayan Reddy/ sri V. Ramana Rao, Vocational Lab. Attender is reverted back to his original consolidated pay of Rs. 650. 00 p. m. with retrospective date i. e. , 1-8-90. " ( 8 ) THE reasons assigned by the Principal, it is contended by Mr. Surender Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, are wholly irrational inasmuch as while passing the same, G. O. Ms. No. 460 dated 18-10-1985 was misread and misinterpreted. According to the learned Counsel, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have been put on regular scale of pay as far back as in the year 1990 pursuant to or in furtherance of the Rules made in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Principal cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction. Our attention has been drawn to various orders from a perusal whereof it would appear that the names of the petitioners had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and they were selected after undergoing an interview. ( 9 ) THUS, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners herein are not denied and disputed. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it would not be correct to hold that the entry of the petitioners in the service was through backdoor or they had been appointed without following the Rules prescribed therefor. The petitioners although were appointed on temporary basis in the years 1988 and 1989, evidently, while they were continuing in service, having regard to the statutory rules made by the State of Andhra Pradesh in terms of g. O. Ms. The petitioners although were appointed on temporary basis in the years 1988 and 1989, evidently, while they were continuing in service, having regard to the statutory rules made by the State of Andhra Pradesh in terms of g. O. Ms. No. 146 dated 20-4-1989, they became entitled to be considered for grant of regular scale of pay. Such scale of pay, having been granted to them by the principal in terms of the aforementioned g. O. , who was the appropriate authority and as such, such grant of scale of pay cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. The learned Tribunal unfortunately failed to consider this aspect of the matter and despite several documents on record which clearly suggest that the names of the petitioners have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, it failed to take into consideration the relevant factors. Learned Tribunal, in our opinion, also wrongly placed reliance upon dr. Meera Massey v. Dr. S. R. Mehrotra and v. Sudheer v. Bar Council of India. It was not a case where statutory functionary exceeded his jurisdiction and had acted beyond the four corners of the statute. As indicated hereinbefore, by reason of g. O. Ms. No. 146 dated 20-4-1989, the principal was authorised to appoint persons on ad hoc basis on a scale of pay mentioned therein. If the Principal had exercised the said jurisdiction, no illegality can be said to have been committed in relation thereto. Furthermore, G. O. Ms. No. 193 stood superseded and was replaced by g. O. Ms. No. 29 dated 23-1-1999 and in that view of the matter, the petitioners were entitled to be considered even for the purpose of regularization of their services. As noticed hereinbefore, the State itself had regularized the services of the persons who are similarly situated. It is not in dispute that G. O. Ms. No. 146 was notified in the gazette and thus it had the force of law. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal committed manifest error in dismissing the o. As. These writ petitions (viz. W. P. Nos. 24199, 25898, 26209 of 1998 and 22446 of 1999) are, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment dated 17-8-1999 and the impugned order dated 4-8-1994 and similar other orders are set aside. These writ petitions (viz. W. P. Nos. 24199, 25898, 26209 of 1998 and 22446 of 1999) are, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment dated 17-8-1999 and the impugned order dated 4-8-1994 and similar other orders are set aside. We, however, may make it clear that as the petitioners have not made any prayer as regards regularization, we do not intend to make any observation in relation thereto. There shall be no order as to costs.