P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioners had questioned G. O. Ms. No. 7, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 21-1-1997 and also prayed for a direction to the respondents to regularise the petitioner in the vacant posts of Attenders as per seniority list of casual labourers dated 25-11-1993 and seniority list of casual labourers dated 31-12-1995 and pass such other suitable orders. ( 2 ) CERTAIN of the writ petitioners i. e. , writ petitioners 2, 5, 4, 13, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26 etc. , filed OA No. 50235 to 299 of 1990 and batch on the file of the A. P. Administrative tribunal at Hyderabad along with the several others wherein the relief prayed for is:". . . . . . TO direct the respondents herein to regularise the services of the applicants herein, while paying the scale of Rs. 740/- basic with all attendant benefits on par with regular employees performing the same or similar duties in Piggery Development project at Visakhaptnam, Visakhapatnam district, Andhra Pradesh after calling for records. "it is also brought to my notice that the said OAs were disposed of. The present writ petition in fact was disposed of by a learned single Judge on 18-2-1997 and respondents 4 to 18 herein who were not impleaded as parties, appear to have moved review WPMP No. 7194/97 which was dismissed observing that the appropriate remedy for review petitioners was to file appeal if they are felt aggrieved of the judgment and accordingly respondents 4 to 18 herein preferred WA No. 488/98 and the Government also have preferred WA no. 610/98 and thus the matter was remitted back for the purpose of affording opportunity to all the parties to be heard in the matter and thus again the present writ petition is coming up for hearing before this court. ( 3 ) THE President of the Animal husbandry Workers Union had filed the writ petition on behalf of 25 casual labourers who are members of the said workers union questioning the G. O. Ms. No. 7, Animal husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 21-1-1997. It is stated that the seniority list of casual labourers working with the respondents-Department at Visakhapatnam was prepared on 25-11-1993 and this list consists of all the persons including SCs. , s. Ts. , and B. Cs. No. 7, Animal husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 21-1-1997. It is stated that the seniority list of casual labourers working with the respondents-Department at Visakhapatnam was prepared on 25-11-1993 and this list consists of all the persons including SCs. , s. Ts. , and B. Cs. , and out of the said persons in the list some of the persons were regularised from time to time according to seniority list after completion of 10 years of service, irrespective of their educational qualifications. It is the case of the petitioners that they have also completed 10 years of service. But however, they are not being regularised. It is also stated that by issuing g. O. Ms. No. 7, dated 21-1-1997, 23 casual labourers are sought to be regularised and the claim of the petitioners for being considered for regularisation is not being considered despite the fact that the petitioners are seniors. In fact, in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, several grounds had been specified in detail why the impugned g. O. Ms. No. 7, Animal Husbandry and fisheries Department, dated 21-1-1997 is not sustainable. ( 4 ) A counter-affidavit is filed narrating all the details and taking a stand that the regularisation is being done subject to the fulfilment of the conditions in G. O. Ms. No. 212, Finance and Planning, (FW-PC -III) department, dated 22-4-1994 and all the details had been furnished in the counter-affidavit. ( 5 ) A reply affidavit also was filed referring to G. O. Rt. No. 1276, dated 5-12-1986 and also G. O. (P) No. 112, Finance and Planning dated 23-7-1997 and also reiterating the stand taken by them in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. ( 6 ) SRI Rama Krishna Rao, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners had made elaborate submissions drawing my attention to G. O. Ms. Nos. 7, 212 and other relevant G. Os. and the provisions of A. P. Regulation of Appointments to Public Service and Regularistion of Staff Pattern and Pay structure Act, 1994, as amended by Act 3 of 1998 and Act 27 of 1998. The learned counsel also had contended that the educational qualification cannot be treated as essential qualification especially in the case of these casual labourers who have been appointed long ago and who are being continued from a very long time. The learned counsel also had contended that the educational qualification cannot be treated as essential qualification especially in the case of these casual labourers who have been appointed long ago and who are being continued from a very long time. The learned counsel also had strenuously contended that what had been questioned in the present writ petition is G. O. Ms. No. 7, whereas the relief prayed for by certain petitioners in the o. As before the A. P. Administrative Tribunal is slightly different. The learned Counsel further contended that the petitioners are entitled for regularisation from the date of issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 7 since the petitioners are seniors to the persons specified in the said G. O. and the petitioners are having more than 10 years of service and in the case of such casual labourers, educational qualifications cannot be taken as a certeria at all and at any rate the government is empowered to regulaise the same in view of the rules. The learned counsel also would maintain that G. O. Ms. No. 212 will not come in the way of regularising the services of the petitioners who are senior to respondents 4 to 18. The learned Counsel also submitted that the cause of action in the writ petition and the cause of action in the OA being totally different, it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable. It was also further contended that the learned government Pleader for Fisheries and animal Husbandry is not justified in taking the preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the writ petition for the first time since the said contention was not raised either in the pleading or even at the stage of writ appeals and now at this stage the petitioners are being taken by surprise in view of such a plea or objection raised in this regard. The learned Counsel further contended that in the light of the view expressed by the Apex Court that normally in cases where the employees had put in sufficient service of atleast more than 10 years, the educational qualifications cannot be the criteria and their services are to be regularised and the learned Counsel placed strong reliance on Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361 , Mool Raj upadhyaya v. State of H. P. and others, 1994 (2) SLR 311, Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India, (2000) 3 SCC 588 , and Tanuku municipality v. S. Venkateswara Rao and another, 2000 (6) ALT 689 . ( 7 ) SRI Prabhakar Reddy, the learned government Pleader for Fisheries and animal Husbandry placing strong reliance on Smt. A. Sivamma v. the District Women and Child Welfare Officer, Kurnool, 1987 (1) ALT 530 and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125 , had raised the preliminary objection that this remedy is a misconceived remedy and unless the petitioners exhaust the remedy before the A. P. Administrative Tribunal they cannot approach this Honourable Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, straightaway. The learned Counsel also submitted that apart from the educational qualifications the other conditions of G. O. Ms. No. 212 also are not satisfied and in the absence of vacancies a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus prayed for cannot be granted at all. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa vidyalaya, Jabalpur, M. P. v. Bal Kishan soni and others, (1997) 5 SCC 86 , rajendra and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, (1999) 2 SC 317, in this regard. The learned Counsel had taken me through paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit and also the other details which had been narrated. The learned Counsel also had placed strong reliance on Secretary, A. P. Social Welfare residential Educational Institutions society, Hyderabad and others v. P. Venkata Kumari, 2001 (4) ALD 368 = 2001 (3) ALT 366 . However, the learned counsel had fairly submitted that as against the said judgment, no doubt SLP is pending. The learned Counsel also further maintained that without questioning G. O. Ms. No. 212 there is no point in questioning G. O. Ms. However, the learned counsel had fairly submitted that as against the said judgment, no doubt SLP is pending. The learned Counsel also further maintained that without questioning G. O. Ms. No. 212 there is no point in questioning G. O. Ms. No. 7 and even in this view of the matter, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel representing respondents 4 to 18 had initially pointed out that some of the petitioners who had been already referred to supra, in fact had already approached the A. P. Administrative tribunal seeking for the same relief virtually. It was also contended that the petitioners are not qualified since the criteria specified in G. O. Ms. No. 212 are not satisfied. The learned Counsel also pointed out that in pursuance of the directions in State of haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 , in fact, G. O. Ms. No. 212 had been issued. If it is the case of the writ petitioners that they are entitled to any kind of regularisation, it is for the Government to consider and the said relief cannot be granted by a writ Court. ( 9 ) HEARD the Counsel at length and also perused the material available on record. ( 10 ) THE checkered career of this litigation already had been referred to supra. It is not in dispute that the seniority list of 76 casual labourers working in the various sections of Animal Husbandry in viskhapatnam District was prepared and notified by the 2nd respondent and the list includes of casual labourers belonging to different communities/ It is further stated that the Government vide G. O. Rt. No. 1276, animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH-II) department, dated 15-12-1986 have granted permission to the 1st respondent - Director of Animal Husbandry, to absorb the casual labourers working in the various farms of Animal Husbandary Department for more than 10 years in the vacant posts of Attenders in the department by duly regularizing the relevant Rules of A. P. Last grade Service Rules and accordingly the casual labourers working in various Farms of Animal Husbandry Department including the casual labourers working in the Vizag district have been absorbed as Attenders from time to time as per the availability of vacancies of attenders duly relaxing the relevant rules of the A. P. Last Grade service Rules. Lastly 18 casual labourers of Vizag District were converted as attenders as per seniority list kept with the 2nd respondent in accordance with the orders issued in G. O. Rt. No. 1276, F. Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH. II) department, dated 15-12-1986 duly relaxing the relevant Rules of A. P. Last Grade service Rules in the proceedings ROC. No. 990/bl/94, dated 9-8-1995. Thereafter the Government issued vide Memo no. 25348/ah (2)/91-15, dated 16-12-1995 and declared that the orders issued in G. O. Rt. No. 1276, dated 15-12-1986 became infructuous. The Government of Andhra pradesh enacted a legislation i. e. , A. P. Regulation of Appointments of Public services and Regularisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure of 1994 (Act 2 of 1994) and the said Act came into force with effect from 25-11-1993 and it was clearly laid down in the said Act that no person who is a daily wage employee or an employee on temporary basis shall have any right to claim of regularisation of services on any ground. The validity of the Act was questioned before this Court and also before the Honourable Supreme Court of India by some of the aggrieved persons and the Apex court in its judgment dated 12-8-1992 in ca No. 2979/92 and Batch had observed to evolve a proper policy for regularisation and accordingly the Government after careful examination of the whole issue and in supersession of all the previous orders on the subject and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court had formulated a scheme for regularisation of the persons appointed on daily wage/nmr or on consolidated pay casual labours who are continuing on the date of commencement of the Act and the government accordingly decided that the services of such persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years and are continuing on 25-11-1993 be regularised by the appointing authorities subject to fulfilment of the following conditions and accordingly issued G. O. Ms. No. 212, Finance and Planning (FWPC. No. 212, Finance and Planning (FWPC. III) department, dated 224-1994: (1) The persons appointed should possess the qualification prescribed as per rules, in force as on the date from which his/her services have to be regularised (Minimum 7th Class Pass in the qualification for appointment to the post of Attender as per Last Grade Service rules.) (2) They should be within the age limits as on the date of appointment as NMR /daily wage employee. (3) The rule of reservation whatever applicable will be followed and backlog will be set off against future vacancies. (4) Sponsoring of candidates from employment Exchange is relaxed. (5) Absorption shall be against clear vacancies. After issuing G. O. Ms. No. 212 the respondents-Department called for particulars of casual labourers working in Animal husbandry Department and submitted proposals to the Government in respect of casual labours who are having minimum educational qualifications of 7th Class and fulfil the other conditions stipulated in G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994. Accordingly, after careful consideration of the issue the government issued orders dated 10-1-1995 directing to regularize the services of the daily wage casual labourers including of vizag District and the details had been furnished, and as there were no clear vacancies of the posts of Attenders in Vizag and Kurnool Districts, the Government accorded permission for absorption of these casual labourers as Attenders in the neighbouring Districts of Vizianagaram and Cuddapah vide G. O. Ms. No. 7, dated 21-1-1997. As such the 23 casual labourers working in Vizag District who are having minimum educational qualifications i. e. , 7th Class and who fulfilled the other conditions of G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994 were ordered to be regularised. Even though some of them are juniors to the casual labours who having minimum educational qualification prescribed by the government, their cases were considered in view of G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994. ( 11 ) IN the decision referred (supra), g. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994 and also the A. P. Regulation of Appointments to public Services and Rationalisation of Staff pattern and Pay Structure Act, 1994, as amended by the Act 3 of 1998 and Act 27 of 1998, had been considered. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994. ( 11 ) IN the decision referred (supra), g. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994 and also the A. P. Regulation of Appointments to public Services and Rationalisation of Staff pattern and Pay Structure Act, 1994, as amended by the Act 3 of 1998 and Act 27 of 1998, had been considered. No doubt, several decisions had been cited by the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners to the effect that in view of the long service, educational qualification cannot be the criteria at all for being considered for the purpose of regularisation. ( 12 ) SEVERAL contentions had been advanced by the Counsel representing the respective parties touching the merits of the matter. However, it is pertinent to note that substantially for the same relief certain of the writ petitioners already had approached the A. P. Administrative Tribunal and in fact o. As. had been disposed of. It is also pertinent to note that this Court at any rate cannot pass any conflicting orders even on the principle of comity. Apart from this aspect of the matter, though it was strenuously contended by the Counsel for the writ petitioners that the objection relating to maintainability of the writ petition had not been taken in the counter- affidavit, nor it was raised at the writ appeal stage, inasmuch as it is a matter relating to the maintainability of the writ petition, in the light of the settled position of law, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Government Pleader for fisheries and Animal Husbandry had raised the preliminary objection and hence this Court is of the considered opinion that though a specific plea is not taken in the counter-affidavit, the respondents are entitled to take that objection especially in the light of the fact that certain of the petitioners already had invoked the jurisdiction of the A. P. Administrative Tribunal for substantially the same relief and the said o. As. had been, in fact disposed of. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances and especially in the light of the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioners had not exhausted their remedy available to them before the A. P. Administrative tribunal, I am not inclined to go into the details and the merits and the demerits of the matter. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances and especially in the light of the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioners had not exhausted their remedy available to them before the A. P. Administrative tribunal, I am not inclined to go into the details and the merits and the demerits of the matter. However, certain of the writ petitioners already had invoked the jurisdiction of the A. P. Administrative tribunal seeking appropriate reliefs and the other writ petitioners had not approached the A. P. Administrative Tribunal in this regard for the reasons best known to them. ( 13 ) IN the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the writ petitioners who had not already invoked the jurisdiction of the A. P. Administrative Tribunal in this regard are given liberty to approach the a. P. Administrative Tribunal seeking appropriate relief in this regard, if they are so advised. Except this relief, no other relief can be granted into the present writ petition and accordingly giving liberty to the other writ petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of the A. P. Administrative tribunal seeking appropriate relief, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.