ORDER : The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of “WRIT OF MANDAMUS” declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as Record Assistant in the college of the third respondent as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the letter and spirit of G.O.Ms.No.212 (Finance & Planning) department dated 22.04.1994, and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to regularize the services of the petitioner as Record Assistant in the college of the third respondent ever since his date of appointment and pass such other order or orders…” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as Laboratory Record Assistant on temporary basis by the Management of Respondent No.3 on consolidated pay w.e.f 23.04.1985. The bone of contention of the petitioner is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.212 (Finance & Planning) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and formed a policy that for regularisation and absorption of employees who were appointed as daily wage/NMRs/ temporary in nature and such persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and are continuing as on 25.11.1993 subject to certain conditions. The writ petitioner filed the present writ petition to declare the action of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not regularising his services as Record Assistant in Respondent No.3 College is illegal and arbitrary and direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to regularize the services of the petitioner as Record Assistant in the College of Respondent No.3 from the date of his appointment. 3. Respondent No.2 Commissioner of Intermediate Education filed Counter Affidavit wherein he submitted that the petitioner had been engaged on temporary basis in the Respondent No.3 college on consolidated pay without obtaining prior permission and without following due procedure of selection. He was engaged purely on consolidated pay by the management and without any prior permission of the Competent Authority. Thus, the individual was engaged on temporary basis in contravention of the Rules stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.1119, Education (J) Department, dated 18.12.1976 and his remuneration is being paid out of the management funds but not from the consolidated funds of the Government. Moreover, the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Record Assistant is not against any sanctioned post. 4. Thus, the individual was engaged on temporary basis in contravention of the Rules stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.1119, Education (J) Department, dated 18.12.1976 and his remuneration is being paid out of the management funds but not from the consolidated funds of the Government. Moreover, the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Record Assistant is not against any sanctioned post. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education further submits that the petitioner herein approached this Court after delay of several years for regularisation of his services is liable for rejection on the ground of delay and latches. He further submits that in view of the G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 06.04.2021 issued by the Higher Education under which a Committee was constituted to consider the similar cases at grant-in-aid institutions. But the committee submitted its report stating that there is no necessity to extend grant-in-aid any further to Private Educational institutions in the State and accordingly in view of that report the petitioner is not entitled for absorption under the scheme of regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. 5. He further submits that the petitioner does not fall under the ambit of G.O.Ms.No.212 (Finance & Planning) Department, dated 22.04.1994, since he had been engaged by the management on temporary basis. It is also submits that unless the appointment is made in accordance with the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1119 Education (J) Department, dated 18.12.1996, scrupulously under the intimation and approvals of the competent authorities, the Government scale/Aided cannot be granted to the college management on engagement on temporary basis. 6. It is also submitted that the Respondent No.3 had surrendered the sanctioned aided posts along with the aided staff to the Government and at present there are no vacancies available in the college. In the absence of vacancies filling up the posts the claim of the petitioner for regularisation cannot be done and claim of the petitioner needs no consideration as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Respondent No.3 Secretary and Correspondent filed Counter Affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant in KVM Chambers Aided Junior College, Palakollu, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh since 1984 and till date, the petitioner is discharging his duties as Laboratory Assistant with the consolidated pay of scale of Rs.350-10-455- 15-550 plus usual allowances applicable to the Government servants. Respondent No.3 Secretary and Correspondent filed Counter Affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant in KVM Chambers Aided Junior College, Palakollu, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh since 1984 and till date, the petitioner is discharging his duties as Laboratory Assistant with the consolidated pay of scale of Rs.350-10-455- 15-550 plus usual allowances applicable to the Government servants. He further states that this respondent already forwarded the proposals of the petitioner to the Respondent No.2 who in turn stated that this respondent is neither competent authority nor proper authority to recommend or to consider the petitioner’s claim and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition against this respondent but the Respondent No.1 is the Competent Authority to redress the claim of the petitioner. 8. Heard Mr.Dr. Sastry Jandhyala, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and perused the material placed before this court, the issues to be decided in the present Case are : i. “Whether the petitioner is entitled for regularisation, as per the scheme formulated under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994?” ii. “If the petitioner is entitled for the relief, what is the date for regularisation ?” 9. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and learned standing counsel for Respondent No.3. The fact remains that the petitioner has been working as Record Assistant at Respondent No.3 College since 1984 upon the consolidated pay scale with all other benefits. Moreover, Respondent No.3 institution was admitted into grant-in-aid by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 long ago. As such, the teaching staff as well as non-teaching staff of the Respondent No.3 institutions are entitled to pay scales on par with regular scale employees as prescribed by the UGC and the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 10. It is also an admitted fact that the Respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 under which a scheme was formulated for regularisation of the Services of the employees who are working as NMR’s, temporary employees, part time employees, contingent employees and also by way of consolidated pay are entitled for regularisaton who completed five years of service on or before 12.05.1993. 11. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner completed more than five years of service since 1984 by the cut-off date 25.11.1993 for regularisation of the services of the petitioner as per the scheme under G.O.Ms.No.212. 12. 11. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner completed more than five years of service since 1984 by the cut-off date 25.11.1993 for regularisation of the services of the petitioner as per the scheme under G.O.Ms.No.212. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon judgment rendered by this Court in W.A.No.1671 of 2014, as such the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of the service. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner completed more than five years of service on or before 25.11.1993 and he is entitled for regularisation as per G.O.Ms.No.212. 13. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Respondent No.3 institution was admitted into aid, in view of the same, the service of the petitioner also should be regularized from the date of his eligibility. He further submits that the petitioner satisfied all the requirements under G.O.Ms.No.212 as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Umadevi’s case. The petitioner possessed all the required qualifications to the post of Record Assistant and the petitioner was selected by the Respondent No.3 as per the due procedure as contemplated for selection by the Educational Institutions on that day as per the Rules in vogue. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it cannot be said that the appointment of the petitioner is not against the sanctioned posts and there is no regular selection and the appointment of the petitioner is to be treated as illegal appointment and also under consolidated pay and he is not eligible for regularisation are not true and correct. Since the petitioner is a qualified person and his appointment was made by regular procedure by the Respondent No.3 and in view of the continuation of the services of the petitioner since more than three decades, it can be presumed that there is a clear vacancy and also requirement of the post against which the petitioner is entitled for regularisation. In support of his contention, he relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.Srinivasulu Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation (Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 dated 17.08.2015) and Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University Vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela (Civil Appeal No.4443 of 2021 dated 26.07.2021). In support of his contention, he relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.Srinivasulu Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation (Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 dated 17.08.2015) and Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University Vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela (Civil Appeal No.4443 of 2021 dated 26.07.2021). (i) In B. Srinivasulu case, it is held as follows: “Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent herein filed writ petition No.11852 of 2012 which was dismissed by an order dated 25.4.2012. Subsequently, the first respondent sought a review of the said order by filing Review Writ Petition Misc. Petition No.10968 of 2013. In the said review application, the impugned order came to be passed. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the review petitioner/Corporation 4 to regularize the services of the unofficial respondents/applicants from the date of filing of the Original Applications i.e. on 27.11.2011 for the purpose of fixation of pay and notional without any monetary benefits subject to availability of vacancies.” Hence the instant appeal aggrieved by the order insofar as it went against the appellants herein. Though the High Court confirmed the order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the appellant herein, the High Court restricted the regularization only with effect from the date of filing of O.A. No.9177 of 2011 dated 27.11.2011. We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned 5 G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. Inspite of the above mentioned 5 G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480 .” (ii) In Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela case, it is held thus: “11. We have heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the university and Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. The main contention of the university is that after the judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the respondents are not entitled for regularization as there are no sanctioned posts available. Another submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the judgment of this Court dated 18.01.2001 in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) does not survive after the judgment of this Court in Uma Devi. It is no doubt true that in Umadevi’s case, it has been held that regularization as a one-time measure can only be in respect of those who were irregularly appointed and have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts. However, in the instant case the respondents are covered by the judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra). This Court approved the proposed scheme of the State of Gujarat and directed regularization of all those daily wagers who were eligible in accordance with the scheme phase-wise. The right to be regularized in accordance with the scheme continues till all the eligible daily-wagers are absorbed. Creation of additional posts for absorption was staggered by this Court permitting the appellant and the State of Gujarat to implement the scheme phase-wise. We are not impressed with the submissions made on behalf of the university that the judgment of this Court in Umadevi’s case overruled the judgment in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra). Creation of additional posts for absorption was staggered by this Court permitting the appellant and the State of Gujarat to implement the scheme phase-wise. We are not impressed with the submissions made on behalf of the university that the judgment of this Court in Umadevi’s case overruled the judgment in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra). The judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) inter partes has become final and is binding on the university. Even according to Para 54 of Uma Devi’s case, any judgment which is contrary to the principles settled in Umadevi shall be denuded of status as precedent. This observation at Para 54 in Umadevi’s case does not absolve the university of its duty to comply with the directions of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra). 13. By an order dated 17.10.2011, persons similarly situated to the respondents were absorbed by being given the benefit of regularization. The Division Bench of the High Court has taken note of the discriminatory approach of the university in conferring the benefit of regularization to some and not to all those daily wagers who are eligible. There is no error in the Judgment of the High Court which warrants interference by this Court. Eligible daily wagers in accordance with the scheme have been eagerly awaiting regularization as per the judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University’s case (supra). The right of the respondents for regularization has been correctly recognized by the High Court.” 15. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 also confirmed the facts as stated by the petitioner and further confirmed that the candidature of the petitioner for regularisation was already forwarded by Respondent No.3 as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.212 and also affirmed that the petitioner has been continuing in service since 1984 without any break on consolidated pay with all other benefits. Accordingly, the Respondent No.3 supported the case of the petitioner for regularisation. 16. The contentions of the learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.2 that the petitioner is appointed on temporary basis under consolidated pay and also not against sanctioned post. Moreover, his appointment was not made through proper selection as required under the rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.1119. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner is illegal appointment. 16. The contentions of the learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.2 that the petitioner is appointed on temporary basis under consolidated pay and also not against sanctioned post. Moreover, his appointment was not made through proper selection as required under the rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.1119. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner is illegal appointment. In view of the G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 06.04.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 10.08.2021 issued by Respondent No.1, there is no necessity of extent of grant in aid in respect of any private educational institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh as such the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for regularisation since he does not satisfied the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, are untenable and liable to be rejected, in view of given facts and circumstances and as per ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra. 17. Learned Government Pleader for Respondents would contend that the petitioner was appointed without following any selection procedure and without sponsoring the candidature of the petitioner through employment exchange and hence, it is an irregular appointment. In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation of his services. For which, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, (2015) 14 SCC 382 wherein it is held as under: “11. At the outset, it is to be pointed out that when the vacancies for the post of Assistant Manager (Civil) were advertised on 20-11- 2002, the scheme for regularisation of contractual employees was not in vogue and it was only subsequently on 16-4-2003, Respondent 1 had taken a policy decision regarding regularisation of 27 contractual employees and the scheme was approved by the State Government vide Letter dated 5-3-2008 and it is only thereafter, the appellants came to be appointed on 6-8-2010. Thus, when the vacancies were initially advertised, the appellants did not have any substantive right against the notified vacancies. Thus, when the vacancies were initially advertised, the appellants did not have any substantive right against the notified vacancies. The appellants cannot be said to have acquired such right to be regularised by virtue of the decision of the learned Single Judge in Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. [Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P., 2005 SCC OnLine All 899 : (2005) 61 ALR 538] as in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], this Court held that the High Court should not issue directions for regularisation, unless the recruitment itself was made in terms of the constitutional scheme and the wide power under Article 226 are not intended to be used for issuance of such directions for regularisation. The appellants were actually regularised only by virtue of the policy decision taken by Respondent 1 and not by virtue of the decision of the High Court. 12. In the impugned judgment [Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Surendra Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine All 9827 : (2014) 102 ALR 418], the Division Bench proceeded on the premise as if Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] held that the State Government, in no circumstance, can regularise the services of contractual employees. In para 53 of Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], the Constitution Bench carved out an exception by observing that the Union of India/State Governments/their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise the services of such irregular employees who have worked for more than ten years and para 53 reads as under: (SCC p. 42) “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [ AIR 1967 SC 1071 : (1967) 1 SCR 128 ] , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [ (1972) 1 SCC 409 ] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [ (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a onetime measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” (emphasis in original)” 18. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Judgments referred supra, the Issue No.1 is held in favour of the petitioner. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion and material evidence placed before this Court, the petitioner has been continued without any break on consolidated pay and he completes more than five years of service as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.212, as on 25.11.1993. 20. As per the above stated facts and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the petitioner is entitled for regularisation after completion of five years from the date of his appointment. 21. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 23.04.1985 but permission was granted by the Respondent No.2 in favour of the Respondent No.3 to fill up the posts of two Record Assistants and one Attender vide proceedings dated 19.02.1991. In view of the permission granted by the Competent Authority for sanction of posts against the petitioner on 19.02.1991, the petitioner is entitled for regularisation from the date of 19.02.1991 by which the petitioner completed five years of services. Accordingly, the issue No.2 was held in favour of the petitioner. 22. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. In view of the permission granted by the Competent Authority for sanction of posts against the petitioner on 19.02.1991, the petitioner is entitled for regularisation from the date of 19.02.1991 by which the petitioner completed five years of services. Accordingly, the issue No.2 was held in favour of the petitioner. 22. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 hereby directed to approve the absorption of the services of the petitioner from 19.02.1991 with all consequential benefits including pension and pensionary benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the writ petition, shall also stand closed.