ORDER : 1. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in R.C.No. 2481/AdminIV-1/96/2 dated 23.03.2004, 14.02.2005 & 28.09.2006 issued by 2nd respondent is arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the order dated 02.01.2004 in Rev.W.A.M.P.No. 3654/2003 in W.A.No. 1564/2003 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. and consequently direct respondents to adjust/absorb/reinstate petitioner into service w.e.f. 06.04.2004 against the aided vacancy post in the Department of Physics occurred due to the retirement of Sri S.Chandra Reddy on 31.07.2001, duly granting the petitioner continuity of service from the initial date of absorption/adjustment against aided vacancy on 10.04.1997 along with consequential attendant benefits including monetary benefits and to pass such other order. 2. The petitioner’s case succintly is thus: (a) The petitioner was initially appointed as Part-time Lecturer in the Department of Physics in the 3rd respondent college on 24.09.1985 and worked as such till 21.12.1994. While so, the petitioner was selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee under G.O.Ms.No. 119, Education dated 20.03.1991, and G.O.Ms.No. 12, Education dated 10.01.1992 and was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of physics in an unaided post w.e.f. 22.12.1994. (b) The petitioner filed W.P.No. 21610/1996 questioning the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not admitting the new section of Intermediate with MPC combination into grant-in-aid which was started during the Academic Year 1984-85, while admitting such new sections into grant-in-aid in all other institutions in the State as arbitrary and discriminatory and for a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to admit the post of Lecturer in physics to grantin- aid or in the alternative to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant permission to 3rd respondent to adjust petitioner against the vacancy of aided lecturer in physics. (c) In W.P.M.P.No. 26690/1996 in W.P.No. 21610/1996, the High Court was pleased to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for admitting into grant-in-aid post of Lecturer in the Department of Physics in 3rd respondent college within a period of four weeks. (c) In W.P.M.P.No. 26690/1996 in W.P.No. 21610/1996, the High Court was pleased to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for admitting into grant-in-aid post of Lecturer in the Department of Physics in 3rd respondent college within a period of four weeks. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondents 1 and 2 and considering the same, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No. 2536/PCII- 1-96 dated 10.04.1997 permitting the petitioner to work as Lecturer in the Department of Physics in the vacant aided post occurred due to resignation of one P.Mohan Rao, Lecturer in physics subject to the outcome of W.P.No. 23477/1996 filed by him. Accordingly, the petitioner continued as Lecturer in Physics in the aided vacancy and he was paid salary attached to said post. (d) Sri P.Mohan Rao initially submitted his resignation on 26.07.1996 and later he withdrew his resignation on 08.08.1996, but in the meanwhile the governing body of 3rd respondent accepted his resignation vide ratification proceedings dt. 12.08.1996. Aggrieved, the said Mohan Rao filed WP.No. 23477/1996 wherein he impleaded petitioner as 7th respondent. (e) Subsequently the High Court disposed of W.P.No. 21610/1996 filed by the petitioner, W.P.No. 23477/1996 filed by P.Mohan Rao and W.P.No. 19985/1996 filed by C.Chandra Reddy by a common order dated 24.10.2002 with certain directions i.e., the 3rd respondent management shall forward proposals for absorption of the petitioner in the aided post, if necessary by conversion of available aided vacancies and upon receiving the proposals from the management, the respondents 1 and 2 herein shall consider petitioner’s case for absorption in the available aided posts after conversion without effecting the continuity of petitioner’s service from the date of original regularization. (f) Aggrieved by the said common order dated 24.10.2002, the respondents 1 and 2 filed W.A.Nos.1564, 1575 and 1576 of 2003 and a Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. in its order dated 16.10.2003 confirmed the order of the single Judge in W.P.No. 23477/1996 and 19985/1996. (f) Aggrieved by the said common order dated 24.10.2002, the respondents 1 and 2 filed W.A.Nos.1564, 1575 and 1576 of 2003 and a Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. in its order dated 16.10.2003 confirmed the order of the single Judge in W.P.No. 23477/1996 and 19985/1996. However, the petitioner is concerned, the Division Bench was pleased to give liberty to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his case for regularization under the relevant G.O. in any aided vacancies that are available in the college from the date when the said posts fell vacant and on any proposal sent by the Management in that regard the same shall be considered by the respondents 1 and 2. The said order was passed by the Division Bench under the impression that the petitioner was working as part-time Lecturer. Hence, the petitioner filed Rev.W.A.M.P.No. 3654/2003 in W.A.No. 1564/2003 bringing to the notice of the Court that he was appointed as an unaided Lecturer but not as part-time lecturer and his case need not be considered for regularization but he has to be considered for absorption into aided vacancy. In fact, the 3rd respondent herein had recommended several times to respondents 1 and 2 to consider petitioner’s case for absorption into a vacant aided post that has arisen on 31.07.2001 due to voluntary retirement of Sri C.Chandra Reddy, aided lecturer in physics. The Division Bench allowed the review petition vide its order dated 02.01.2004 and directed the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s case for adjustment against aided vacancy in the Department of physics which had arisen on 31.07.2001. (g) While so, the 2nd respondent with a view to implement the order in W.P.No. 23477/1996 and to accommodate P.Mohan Rao as Lecturer in physics, issued the impugned proceedings stating that the petitioner’s case cannot be considered for absorption against the grant-in-aid post as there is no sufficient work load ignoring the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent and orders passed by the High Court dated 02.01.2004 directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s case for absorption against the aided vacancy available due to voluntary retirement of C.Chandra Reddy. The observation of the 2nd respondent that there is no sufficient work load to consider petitioner’s case for absorption against the grant-in-aid post and petitioner’s service has become surplus is untenable for the reason that one Mr. The observation of the 2nd respondent that there is no sufficient work load to consider petitioner’s case for absorption against the grant-in-aid post and petitioner’s service has become surplus is untenable for the reason that one Mr. V.Prabhakaraiah, Junior Lecturer in physics who was appointed on 14.02.1995 much later than petitioner’s appointment was absorbed into an aided vacancy and being continued as such. Therefore, the impugned proceedings is contrary to the order dated 02.01.2004. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No. 8142/2004, wherein an interim order dated 06.08.2004 was passed directing respondents 1 & 2 to consider the case of petitioner for absorption in the existing aided vacancy and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks. 4. The respondents 1 & 2 filed stay vacate petition in I.A.No. 1/2022 along with their counter. The counter averments are briefly thus: (a) While reiterating the writ petition averments, the respondents 1 & 2 in their counter additionally submitted that pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. in W.A.M.P.No. 3654/2003 in W.A.No. 1564/2003 dated 02.01.2004 directing the Government to consider the petitioner’s case for absorption as per rules within a period of three months, the matter was examined de novo with reference to the work load and vacancy position in the Department of physics as reported by the Correspondent & Principal of 3rd respondent college. As per the existing work load, it was found that the Lecturers working in the Department of physics were surplus in number and therefore, the request of the petitioner for regularization of his services against the aided vacancy had been rejected in the impugned proceedings dated 23.03.2004 of the 2nd respondent as it is not as per rules as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court. (b) It is further submitted that the management of the college has submitted proposals for absorption of the petitioner against an aided vacancy which arose w.e.f. 31.07.2021 due to the voluntary retirement of C.Chandra Reddy, aided Lecturer in physics. However, since the petitioner herein was allowed to continue in service against the resigned vacancy of Sri P.Mohan Rao, subject to final outcome of W.P.No. 23477/1996, the question of absorption of the petitioner against the retirement vacancy of Sri C.Chandra Reddy, Lecturer in physics does not arise. However, since the petitioner herein was allowed to continue in service against the resigned vacancy of Sri P.Mohan Rao, subject to final outcome of W.P.No. 23477/1996, the question of absorption of the petitioner against the retirement vacancy of Sri C.Chandra Reddy, Lecturer in physics does not arise. (c) So far as the petitioner’s allegation that B.Prabhakaraiah, Junior Lecturer in Physics/4th respondent, who was appointed much later than petitioner was absorbed into aided vacancy and continued as such, which is arbitrary and violative of review order of Division Bench is concerned, it is stated that the 4th respondent was initially appointed as part-time lecturer in physics w.e.f. 22.07.1985 and subsequently he was appointed as unaided lecturer in physics in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 12 dated 10.01.1992 and joined duty on 14.02.1995. Later, in terms of the order issued in Government Memo No. 2138/CEII-1/96-5 Edn. dated 05.10.1999, the services of 4th respondent was regularized as Junior Lecturer in Physics. The petitioner has not exercised the claim for regularization/absorption against the post, in which the 4th respondent who is junior to him was regularized in the Department though he was continuing in the Department as per Government orders against the vacancy of P.Mohan Rao as on that day. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the 4th respondent who was junior to him was absorbed in grant-in-aid post is unsustainable. (d) It is further contended that the Government, in order to improve/strengthen the quality of education in Government sector degree colleges, constituted a Committee vide G.O.Ms.No. 52, Higher Education (CE) Department dated 06.04.2021 to study the performance of the aided education institutions including the schools and minority institutions in the State. The Committee submitted a report recommending that there is no necessity to extend grant-inaid any further to the private educational institutions in the State. Thereafter, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No. 42, Higher Education (CE Dept) dated 10.08.2021 issued orders prescribing policy for takeover of voluntarily surrendered aided degree colleges in the State by the Government. In response to the above policy 124 aided degree colleges in the State have given willingness to surrender their grant-in-aid in the form of surrendering their aided staff to the Government. Accordingly, the Government accepted the proposals of the managements to surrender their grant-in-aid in the form of surrendering all duly sanctioned aided posts and existing aided teaching and non-teaching staff to the Government. Accordingly, the Government accepted the proposals of the managements to surrender their grant-in-aid in the form of surrendering all duly sanctioned aided posts and existing aided teaching and non-teaching staff to the Government. (e) The 3rd respondent college is one of the colleges which has voluntarily surrendered grant-in-aid in the form of surrendering all the duly sanctioned aided posts and existing aided teaching and non-teaching staff to the Government. The Government vide G.O.Rt.No. 129, Higher Education (CEA.2) Department dated 01.09.2021 accepted the request of the management of Sri Sarvodaya College, Nellore to surrender their grant-in-aid. As a result, the said college has voluntarily surrendered all the duly sanctioned aided posts and now it is a private unaided college as of today. Hence, the cause of petitioner in the writ petition does not survive and the services of petitioner cannot be regularized/absorbed. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. The respondents 3 and 4 filed counter opposing the writ petition contending thus: (a) The petitioner was appointed as unaided lecturer in the Department of physics w.e.f. 22.12.1994. (b) Pursuant to interim order dated 10.10.1996 in W.P.No. 21610/1996, the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Rc.No. 2536/PC2-1/96 dated 10.04.1997 permitted the petitioner to work as lecturer in physics in vacant aided post cause due to the resignation of P.Mohan Rao subject to the outcome of W.P.No. 23477/1996 filed by Mohan Rao. An undertaking was obtained from the petitioner to that effect stating that he will be abide by the decision in W.P.No. 23477/1996. While so, there was no aided work load in the Department of physics at that time in the aided post due to resignation of P.Mohan Rao. There were 104 hours of aided work load in the Department of physics during 1996-97. Six lecturers were working at that time (18 hours per lecturer). So there was no aided post to allow the petitioner to work. (c) While so, as per the common order dated 24.10.2002 in W.P.Nos.19985, 23477 and 21610 of 1996, Sri B.Chandra Reddy, Lecturer in Chemistry and P.Mohan Rao, Lecturer in physics joined duty on 11.11.2002. Subsequently as per the Division Bench order dated 16.10.2003 in W.A.Nos.1575 and 1576 of 2003 salaries were paid to them. (c) While so, as per the common order dated 24.10.2002 in W.P.Nos.19985, 23477 and 21610 of 1996, Sri B.Chandra Reddy, Lecturer in Chemistry and P.Mohan Rao, Lecturer in physics joined duty on 11.11.2002. Subsequently as per the Division Bench order dated 16.10.2003 in W.A.Nos.1575 and 1576 of 2003 salaries were paid to them. In W.A.No. 1564/2003, a direction was given to consider the regularization of present petitioner in any aided vacancy that is available in the college from the date when the said post fell vacant and any proposal sent by the management in that regard shall be considered by the present respondents 1 and 2. However, since there was no aided work load in the Department of physics, it was not possible to adjust the petitioner in the aided post as per law. Further, as per proceedings in Rc.No. 422/CIII-1/99 dated 04.07.1999, all the vacancies that arose after 01.04.1999 come under the SC ST backlog. Hence, it is not possible to adjust the petitioner in those vacancies as he was non-SC/ST. (d) So far as Sri B.Prabhakaraiah/4th respondent, Lecturer in physics is concerned, as per orders of the High Court of A.P. dated 03.02.1998 in W.P.No. 19093/1996, the Government issued Memo No. 2138/CE-II-I/96/5 dated 05.10.1999 to the 2nd respondent to regularize the services of 4th respondent and admit his post to grantin- aid against one of the two existing surplus posts available in the college, the 4th respondent was regularized as Junior lecturer in physics and admitted into grant-in-aid post against one of the two existing surplus posts w.e.f. 16.10.1999. He was allotted intermediate work only since he was regularized as Junior Lecturer. Finally, the respondents while reiterating that there was no aided work load in the Department of physics at the time of permitting the petitioner to work in aided post on 10.04.1997 reiterated that his request for admitting into grant-in-aid was rightly rejected. The respondents thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard arguments of learned Senior Counsel Sri Gangaiah Naidu representing Sri N.Bharat Babu and Sri S.Sriram Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and Sri M.V.Rajaram, counsel for 3rd respondent, and Sri S.Sriram, counsel for 4th respondent. Both the learned counsel reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. 7. 6. Heard arguments of learned Senior Counsel Sri Gangaiah Naidu representing Sri N.Bharat Babu and Sri S.Sriram Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and Sri M.V.Rajaram, counsel for 3rd respondent, and Sri S.Sriram, counsel for 4th respondent. Both the learned counsel reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. 7. The point for consideration in this writ petition is: (1) Whether the impugned proceedings in R.C.No. 2481 /AdminIV-1/96/2 dated 23.03.2004 and concomitant impugned proceedings in R.C.No. 2481/AdminIV-II/96 dated 14.02.2005 & R.C.No. 2481/AdminIV-II/96 dated 14.02.2005 dated 28.09.2006 are legally sustainable in the light of the directions given in common order 24.10.2002 in W.P.Nos.19985, 23477 and 21410 of 1996 and Review W.A.No. 3456/2003 in W.A.No. 1564/2003 of the High Court of A.P.? 8. Point: Most of the facts are admitted by both parties and hence, they are not reproduced for fear of pleonasm. In my considered view, it will be suffice to mention the directions given by the High Court of A.P. from time to time in different proceedings and the consequent proceedings issued by the respondents 1 and 2 herein and test the validity and legality of those proceedings in the light of facts and law. 9. Admittedly, three writ petitions came to be filed by three Lecturers including the petitioner herein working in Sarvodaya College, Nellore/3rd respondent herein. W.P.Nos.19985/1996 and 23477/1996 were filed by two Lecturers questioning the legality and propriety of accepting their respective resignation letters by 3rd respondent herein though even before the date of such acceptance, they withdrew their resignations by separate letters. 10. W.P.Nos.19985/1996 and 23477/1996 were filed by two Lecturers questioning the legality and propriety of accepting their respective resignation letters by 3rd respondent herein though even before the date of such acceptance, they withdrew their resignations by separate letters. 10. Whereas, the present petitioner filed W.P.No. 21610/1996 questioning the action of the present respondents 1 & 2 in not admitting the new section of Intermediate with MPC combination to grant-in-aid started in the year 1984-85, while admitting such new sections to grant-in-aid in all other institutions in the State as arbitrary and discriminatory and also in not admitting the post of Lecturers working in the restructured course of Mathematics, Physics and Electronics in spite of ratification in 1991 as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction: (a) While so, in W.P.M.P.No. 26690/1996 in W.P.No. 21610/1996 filed by the present petitioner, the High Court of A.P. passed an interim order dated 10.10.1996 as follows: “There shall be an interim direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for admitting the post of Lecturer in Physics in 3rd respondent college in accordance with the Rules within a period of 4 weeks i.e. 7-11-96 pending further orders. Notice.” Pursuant to the said order, the 2nd respondent issued the proceedings in Rc.No. 2536/PC II-1/96 dated 10.04.1997 as follows: “In view of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and as per the instructions of the Government in the reference 1st and 2nd respectively, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad is pleased to allow Sri E.Gopala Krishnaiah to work as Lecturer in Physics in the vacant aided post caused due to the resignation of Sri P.Mohana Rao, subject to the condition of the out come of the W.P.No. 23477/96 filed by Sri P.Mohana Rao. The Secretary and Correspondent is requested to obtain an undertaking from Sri E.Gopala Krishnaiah that he will abide by the decision of the Hon’ble Court in W.P.No. 23477/96 and send the same along with salary statement. The Correspondent, Sri Sarvodaya College, Nellore is requested to submit Supplementary Annual Salary Statement in respect of the incumbent for approval. The Secretary and Correspondent is requested to obtain an undertaking from Sri E.Gopala Krishnaiah that he will abide by the decision of the Hon’ble Court in W.P.No. 23477/96 and send the same along with salary statement. The Correspondent, Sri Sarvodaya College, Nellore is requested to submit Supplementary Annual Salary Statement in respect of the incumbent for approval. A.K. GOEL Commissioner of Collegiate Education.” (b) Thus, the High Court in its interim order only directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to admit him in the post of Lecturer in physics but it has not directed to accommodate him specifically in the vacant aided post created due to resignation of Sri P.Mohan Rao. The respondent authorities, it would appear, as a matter of convenience, have accommodated the petitioner in the vacant aided post of Sri P.Mohan Rao which was created on account of his resignation. No doubt to that extent respondent authorities may be correct. However, what is noteworthy is that the proceedings dated 10.04.1997 would not prevent the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner to accommodate in a regular aided vacancy if subsequently arise, subject to his eligibility. Such a vacancy has in fact arisen, but the respondents 1 & 2 have not considered petitioner for admitting into aided vacancy, which fact is evident from the proceedings in Memo No. 2138/CE.II-1/99-5 dated 05.10.1999 of 1st respondent. The said proceedings are as follows: “In the circumstances reported by the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education and also in supercession of the orders in the reference third cited, and after reexamination of the entire issue in detail, Government hereby permit the Commissioner & Director of Collegiete Education to regularize the services of Sri B.Prabhakaraiah, Lecturer in Physics, Sri Sarvodaya College, Nellore as Jr. Lecturer in Physics and admit his post to grant-in-aid against one of the existing two surplus posts available in the said college. A.K. GOEL Prl. Secretary to Government.” (c) In the above proceedings, the Government have permitted 2nd respondent to regularize the services of B.Prabhakaraiah/4th respondent, Lecturer in Physics as Jr. Lecturer in Physics and admit his post to grant-in-aid against one of the existing two surplus posts available in 3rd respondent college. A.K. GOEL Prl. Secretary to Government.” (c) In the above proceedings, the Government have permitted 2nd respondent to regularize the services of B.Prabhakaraiah/4th respondent, Lecturer in Physics as Jr. Lecturer in Physics and admit his post to grant-in-aid against one of the existing two surplus posts available in 3rd respondent college. Admittedly, the 4th respondent is junior to the petitioner, inasmuch as, while the petitioner was appointed in the unaided post w.e.f. 22.12.1994, the 4th respondent was appointed as unaided Lecturer in physics and joined duty on 14.02.1995. In that view, when two surplus posts were available by 05.10.1999, it was incomprehensible as to why 4th respondent, who was junior to petitioner, alone was recommended for not only regularization of the service but also for admission into grant-in-aid post. It is nobody’s case and neither stated in counter that the petitioner was ineligible to be considered for admission into aided vacancy post during the relevant period. Therefore, omission of the petitioner from consideration is unjust and illegal. In the counter, respondents 1 and 2 sought to project a lame excuse stating that the petitioner who was working in the vacant aided post created due to retirement of P.Mohan Rao, did not make a claim for absorption in the post in which the 4th respondent was accommodated. This explanation is reprehensible. In the service jurisprudence, when a promotional vacancy or aided vacancy occurs, the department has to prepare a list of eligible candidates for such post and appoint them as per the seniority, eligibility and other norms. It is not necessary for the employee to stake a claim. Therefore, the excuses of the respondents that the petitioner was officiating in P.Mohan Rao’s vacancy and therefore, he was not considered or that he did not make a claim for the aided post in which 4th respondent was accommodated is per se untenable. Thus, the respondents, in my considered view, committed severe blunder in sidelining the petitioner at that juncture. 11. Added to above, the respondents have committed another blunder. A learned single Judge of High Court of A.P. passed common order dated 24.10.2002 in W.P.No. 19985/96, W.P.No. 23477/1996 and W.P.No. 21610/1996 (filed by the present petitioner). Thus, the respondents, in my considered view, committed severe blunder in sidelining the petitioner at that juncture. 11. Added to above, the respondents have committed another blunder. A learned single Judge of High Court of A.P. passed common order dated 24.10.2002 in W.P.No. 19985/96, W.P.No. 23477/1996 and W.P.No. 21610/1996 (filed by the present petitioner). While allowing the first two writ petitions, learned Judge has sympathetically considered the case of present writ petitioner who is the 7th respondent in W.P.No. 23477/1996 and passed the following order: “Coming to the hardship that would cascade upon the 6th and 7th respondents in W.P.Nos.19985 of 1996 and 23477 of 1996 respectively, necessary steps are imperatively to be taken by the present Management and also the official respondents with collectively to meet the ends of justice in present peculiar contingencies. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons and keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and the learned counsel for the present Management, Writ Petition Nos.19985 of 1996 and 23477 of 1996 are allowed with the following directions: (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) The Management shall forward the proposals for absorption of 6th respondent in W.P.No. 19985 of 1996 and the 7th respondent in W.P.No. 23477 of 1996 (petitioner in W.P.No. 21610 of 1996) in aided posts, if necessary by conversion of available aided vacancies. (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) This exercise shall be done by the Management within a period of 4 weeks and send the proposals to the official respondents. On such receipt of the proposals from the Management, the Commissioner, Collegiate Education and the State Government shall consider the absorption of 6th respondent in W.P.No. 19985 of 1996 and the 7th respondent in W.P.No. 23477 of 1996 (petitioner in W.P.No. 21610 of 1996) in the available aided posts after conversion without affecting the continuity of service from the date of their original regularization and release the balance amount payable to them within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. (6) In the meanwhile, the 6th and 7th respondents in W.P.Nos.19985 of 1996 and 23477 of 1996 respectively shall be continued in service.” (a) Thus in the above order, the present petitioner is concerned (7th respondent in WP No. 23477/1996) learned single judge directed that the management shall forward proposals for absorption in aided posts, if necessary by conversion of available aided vacancies and such exercise shall be made by the management within a period of four weeks and send proposals to the official respondents. It was further directed that on receipt of the proposals from the management, the official respondents shall consider the absorption of the petitioner in the available aided posts after conversion without effecting the continuity of his service from the date of original regularization. Thus a positive direction was given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. (b) Pursuant to the above direction, the Sarvodaya College /3rd respondent addressed letter dated 07.12.2002 to the 2nd respondent (copy of the said letter dated 07.12.2002 is filed along with material papers in the writ petition). In the said letter the 3rd respondent stated as follows: “Further I submit that there are two aided vacancies in Sri Sarvodaya College, Nellore - one in Physics due to voluntary retirement of Sri C. Chandra Reddy, lecturer in Physics w.e.f. 31.07.2001 and another in English due to voluntary retirement of Sri T. Ramamohan Reddy, lecturer in English w.e.f 17-9-02. Hence I request you to issue necessary absorption orders in this regard. The W.P.No. 21610/96 was disposed of without costs on 24.10.2002. He (the petitioner) is being continued as per the direction of the High Court in W.P.No. 21610/96, dt: 24-10-02. A copy of the representation submitted by Sri E. Gopalakrishnaiah is herewith enclosed.” Thus the correspondent of 3rd respondent college has responded in due course to the order of the learned single Judge and informed to respondent 2 about the availability of two aided vacancy posts i.e., - one in physics and another in English and requested to absorb the petitioner in one such post. It is important to note that a direct aided vacancy was available in the Department of Physics itself to which the petitioner belonged. However, the respondents 1 and 2 have not shown any inclination. It is important to note that a direct aided vacancy was available in the Department of Physics itself to which the petitioner belonged. However, the respondents 1 and 2 have not shown any inclination. (c) While the matter pending thus, as against the common orders in W.P.Nos.19985, 23477 and 21610 of 1996 Writ Appeal Nos.1576, 1575 and 1564 of 2003 respectively were filed by the Government and they were disposed of by division bench of High Court of A.P. by its common order dated 16.10.2003. In the said order so far as the petitioner is concerned, it was observed that the said judgment will not come in the way of appellants in considering the REGULARIZATION of the service of the petitioner in any aided vacancy that is available in the college from the date when the said post fell vacant and any proposal sent by the Management in that regard shall be considered by the appellants expeditiously. Obviously Hon’ble Division Bench was under the impression that the petitioner was holding a temporary post and recommended for his regularization. Aggrieved the petitioner filed Review W.A.M.P No. 3654/2003 in W.A.No. 1564/2003 submitting that he was already appointed in a regular unaided post by the Departmental Selection Committee and it was wrongly taken as if he was seeking permanent absorption or regularization. Considering his submission the division bench passed the following order: “As a matter of fact, in view of the admitted position, it was a question of adjustment if any against any aided vacancy that had arisen in the college and not a case of regularization. Accordingly, we clarify our judgment that since petitioner herein was appointed regularly in an unaided vacancy, our judgment will not come in the way of the Government and Commissioner of Collegiate Education in considering the case of the petitioner for adjustment against the aided vacancy in Department of Physics which had arisen on 30.07.2001. His case will be considered and decided by the Government and Commissioner of Collegiate Education as per rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Thus the above order pellucidly manifests that the petitioner can be adjusted against the aided vacancy in Department of Physics which had arisen on 30.07.2001. His case will be considered and decided by the Government and Commissioner of Collegiate Education as per rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Thus the above order pellucidly manifests that the petitioner can be adjusted against the aided vacancy in Department of Physics which had arisen on 30.07.2001. However, in spite of the repeated Court orders, respondent authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner for admission into aided post. The attitude of the respondents is contumacious and contemptuous. 12. The explanations of the respondents are factually and legally untenable. One of the grounds shown for declining aided vacancy to the petitioner is that there are no sufficient number of aided working hours in the 3rd respondent college for the existing vacant posts. If that were so, it is quite incomprehensible as to how the respondents accommodated the 4th respondent, who is junior to the petitioner, in the aided vacancy way back in 1995 itself. Therefore the said explanation stands for no valid reason. The second explanation is that the petitioner was selected as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No. 12, Education, dated 10.11.1992 but not in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 905, Education, dated 21.09.1976 and therefore the petitioner cannot be considered to be posted in aided vacancy in any other college. In my view, having regard to the injustice meted out to the petitioner twice i.e., once by omitting him and admitting the 4th respondent in the available aided vacancy vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 10.04.1997 and later in not considering him in the year 2001 when a clear aided vacancy had arisen w.e.f 31.07.2001 on the voluntary retirement of Sri C. Chandra Reddy, Lecturer in Physics, the respondents now cannot take a lame excuse that he was appointed in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 12 and therefore his case cannot be considered. On the other hand, in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 12 the petitioner was duly selected by Selection Committee against a clear unaided vacancy. That was the reason why in the earlier round of litigation, the High Court of A.P. has given a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for admission into available aided vacancy or if necessary in a converted aided post. In the teeth of those orders, the contention of respondents is unsustainable. That was the reason why in the earlier round of litigation, the High Court of A.P. has given a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for admission into available aided vacancy or if necessary in a converted aided post. In the teeth of those orders, the contention of respondents is unsustainable. For the same reason, another contention of the respondents that the Government vide G.O.Rt.No. 129, Higher Education (CEA-2) Department dated 01.09.2021 accepted the surrender of grant-in-aid posts made by the 3rd respondent and therefore petitioner cannot be accommodated in the aided post in the 3rd respondent college cannot be accepted. The surrender is of the recent origin as per G.O.Ms.No. 42, Higher Education (CE Dept), dated 10.08.2021, whereas the directions issued by the Courts were long back in between 2002 and 2004. Therefore, the respondents cannot repudiate their responsibility by projecting G.O.Ms.No. 42. Even otherwise, learned senior counsel for the petitioner across the bar would submit that the petitioner is ready to join, if accommodated in an aided post anywhere in the State. Thus on a conspectus of facts and law, I hold the impugned orders are unjust and illegal and are liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in R.C.No. 2481/AdminIV-1/96/2 dated 23.03.2004, 14.02.2005 and 28.09.2006 issued by 2nd respondent are hereby set aside with a direction to the respondent authorities to accommodate the petitioner as Lecturer in an aided post in the Department of Physics anywhere in the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 31.07.2001 when a clear aided vacancy had arisen in the Department of Physics, with all consequential benefits, within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. 14. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any pending, shall stand closed.