JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri K. Sreedhara Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities & Municipal Corporations, representing the petitioner-Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, Ms. K. Rajyalakshmi, learned counsel, representing the respondents No.1 and 2, through virtual mode. The respondents No.3 and 4 are represented by the learned Government Pleader for Services. 2. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation for the following relief: “…to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to orders passed in OA No.6921 of 2012 dated 05.09.2012 and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders…..” 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 are the applicants in O.A.No.6921 of 2021 filed by them in Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’). The OA was filed to declare the action of the 3rd respondent therein, the present petitioner in issuing the rejection Orders in Rc.No.1902/2008-F3, dated 03.11.2011 and consequential proceedings in Rc.No.1902/2003-F1, dated 13.04.2012 and to set aside the same and declare the respondents 1 and 2 to be entitled for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 were appointed as Sweepers in the then Gandhi Prakasamnagar Gram Panchayat after conducting interviews for the said post by the competent authority under Section 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act 1964, vide Roc.No.138/79A1, dated 30.03.1981 on temporary basis on consolidated salary. Later on, the Gram Panchayat was merged into Rajamundry Municipality and the Municipality also fixed the scale of Rs.740/- and other allowances in favour of the said respondents, vide proceedings dated 14.03.1990. Later on, the Municipality became Corporation and the respondents became the employees of the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation. 5. The Government formulated a scheme and issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 for regular employment of the employees. According to the said G.O., the employees who were already working prior to the said G.O and had completed more than 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993 were entitled for regularization. The Municipal Corporation submitted proposal to the Commissioner and Director of the Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide proceedings Roc.No.1902/2003-F3, dated 16.09.2011 and recommended the case of the respondents 1 and 2 for regularization. The Municipal Corporation submitted proposal to the Commissioner and Director of the Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide proceedings Roc.No.1902/2003-F3, dated 16.09.2011 and recommended the case of the respondents 1 and 2 for regularization. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Memo No.12777/D2/2000 (Ex.P3), dated 20.10.2011 rejecting the case of the respondents 1 & 2 for absorption on the ground that there were no sanctioned posts available, and also rejected the request for grant of time scale. The Commissioner was, however, directed to examine the case of the respondents 1 & 2 under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and to send proposals to the Government. 6. The Corporation vide proceedings in Roc.No.1902/2005-F3, dated 03.11.2011, submitted information to the Government that the respondents 1 and 2 had no educational qualifications and were also not able to read and write. The Government vide Memo No.12777/D2/2000, dated 29.12.2011 rejected the proposal for regularization on the ground that the respondents did not possess the required qualification of read and write to hold the post of PH workers as per A.P.Last Grade Service Rules, 1992. Consequently, the petitioner-Corporation issued the proceedings in Roc.No.1902/2003-F1, dated 13.04.2012, rejecting the case of the respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that they did not have minimum qualification of ‘writing & reading’, as per rules. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents 1 and 2 filed O.A.No.6921 of 2012, which has been disposed of by the Tribunal vide Order dated 05.09.2012, with the following directions: “8. A similar matter was adjudicated by this Tribunal in O.A.8365/2011 wherein directions were passed, basing on the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court, to the respondents to pass fresh orders regarding the request of the applicant for regularization of her services, without insisting for educational qualifications. 9. This O.A. is also disposed of according to the orders passed in O.A.8365/2011 and the impugned orders vide Roc.No.1902/2008-F3, dated 03.11.2011 and consequential proceedings Rc.No.1902/2003-F1, dated 13.04.2012 are set aside. The respondents are directed to take into consideration, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and pass fresh orders regarding the request of the applicants for regularization of their services without insisting for educational qualifications within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of order.” 8. The respondents are directed to take into consideration, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and pass fresh orders regarding the request of the applicants for regularization of their services without insisting for educational qualifications within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of order.” 8. Thus, the impugned proceedings before the Tribunal were quashed and the respondents therein were directed to pass fresh orders regarding the request for regularization without insisting for educational qualifications, within the specified period. 9. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 10. Sri K. Sreedhara Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Government had issued two Memos No.12777/D2/2000, dated 20.10.2011, as also dated 29.12.2011 (Exs.P3 & P4) respectively, where the case of the respondents 1 and 2 was rejected. But the same were not challenged. The orders issued by the petitioner Corporation were only the consequential orders which were challenged. He submits that the petitioner being bound by the Government Memos, had issued consequential order dated 13.04.2012. Merely challenging and even quashing the consequential orders would not give any benefit to the respondents 1 and 2 and as such, the direction as issued by the Tribunal, could not be legally issued. 11. Sri K. Sreedhara Murthy further submits that the educational qualifications of the respondents 1 and 2 was not as per rules, viz., Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service Rules, 1992, which for the post of Sweeper, provided the educational qualifications for Class-IV as “read and write”. He submits that the G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, which provided for the regularization inter alia provided that the persons appointed should possess the qualifications prescribed as per rules in force as on the date from which his/her services had to be regularized. His submission is that the respondents 1 and 2 did not possess that qualification as under Rules 1992, and consequently, the order of the Tribunal directing to consider the regularization without insisting upon the educational qualifications, cannot be legally sustained. 12. Ms. K. Rajyalakshmi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, submits that the respondents 1 and 2 were appointed by the competent authority as per the provisions under Section 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. Consequently, the question of their educational qualification at the stage of regularization should not arise. 12. Ms. K. Rajyalakshmi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, submits that the respondents 1 and 2 were appointed by the competent authority as per the provisions under Section 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. Consequently, the question of their educational qualification at the stage of regularization should not arise. The Rules of Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service Rules 1992 came later on. She further submits that though G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, provides for regularization that the person must possess the educational qualifications as per rules, and even if it be applied, the respondents 1 and 2 having worked continuously for more than 35 years, on the date of consideration they had attained much experience. The educational qualification, subsequently laid down for the post, has nothing to do with the functioning of the petitioner on that Class-IV post. There has also not been any complaint against the respondents 1 and 2, for their working or discharge of duty for want of the educational qualifications as per Rules 1992, that they were not able to efficiently perform their duties. Consequently, there is no illegality in the Order of the Tribunal. She placed reliance in the cases of Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar, 2001 AIR SCW 351 and Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Devl.Corpn., (1990) 1 SCC 361 in support of her contentions. 13. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 14. Undisputedly, respondents 1 and 2 were appointed in the year 1981 and they had worked for the last more than 35 years as on the date their case for regularization was rejected. The rejection is not on the ground that they were not able to perform their duties because of want of educational qualifications, as per the Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service Rules, 1992. 15. In Gujarat Agricultural University (supra), the respondents therein, the labourers, were engaged due to exigencies of work without considering the relevant factors about their educational qualifications etc., under the Recruitment Rules. They approached the Industrial Tribunal raising Industrial Dispute and the Tribunal directed to regularize the services of those, who had completed 10 years of service, as on 01.01.1993 with pay and all allowances along with other benefits of the permanent class IV employees. The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. They approached the Industrial Tribunal raising Industrial Dispute and the Tribunal directed to regularize the services of those, who had completed 10 years of service, as on 01.01.1993 with pay and all allowances along with other benefits of the permanent class IV employees. The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. The Letter Patent Appeal also having been decided against the appellant-Gujarat Agricultural University. They approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. 16. The scheme for regularization of “Daily Rated Labourers of the Gujarat Agricultural University” as in that case, one of the terms and conditions for regularization provided that, the daily rated employees shall be eligible and must possess the prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of their appointment on daily rated basis. One of the objections, the main objection raised on behalf of the appellant was that a person could only be regularized on any vacant post and if there be one he should be qualified for the same as per qualification, if any, prescribed. Considering one of the conditions of the regularization scheme under Clause-1 (a) that such employee shall be eligible only if he possesses the prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of their appointment, the Hon’ble Apex Court found merit in the submissions advanced that working for the period of 10 or more years without any complaint was by itself a sufficient requisite qualification and any other rider on the facts of the case would prejudice those workers. It was observed that daily rate workers who have been working for such a long number of years without complaint on the respective posts that was a ground by itself for the relaxation of the eligibility condition and it would not be appropriate to disqualify them on that ground of education qualification for their absorption. 17. In Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to its previous judgment in Bhagwati Prasad (supra), in which it was observed and held that the petitioners therein had worked ever since 1983 and 1986 and had gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached to the posts held by them. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and it was sure guide to assess the suitability. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and it was sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts was undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it was so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lacked the prescribed educational qualifications. 18. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs-27 to 29 of Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) as under: “27. In the light of the aforesaid decisions we now proceed to examine the proposed scheme. Under clause 1 it is proposed that all daily-wage workers, whether skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31-12-1999 are to be regularised and be put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the University. However, the said regularisation is subject to some conditions. Under clause 1(a) such employees are eligible only if they possess the prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of their appointment. A strong objection has been raised to this eligibility clause. The submission is, those working for a period of 10 or more years without any complaint is by itself a sufficient requisite qualification and any other rider on the facts of this case would prejudice these workers. We find merit in this submission. We have perused the qualifications referred in the aforesaid recruitment rules according to which, qualification for a peon is that he should study up to 8th standard, for operator-cum-mechanic, he should have diploma in Mechanic having sufficient knowledge of vehicle repairing, experience in automobiles or tractor dealers' workshop for two years, for chowkidar, he must be literate and have good physique. Literate is not defined. For Plumber, to have ITI Certificate. 28. We feel that daily-rate workers who have been working on the aforesaid posts for such a long number of years without complaint on these posts is a ground by itself for the relaxation of the aforesaid eligibility condition. Literate is not defined. For Plumber, to have ITI Certificate. 28. We feel that daily-rate workers who have been working on the aforesaid posts for such a long number of years without complaint on these posts is a ground by itself for the relaxation of the aforesaid eligibility condition. It would not be appropriate to disqualify them on this ground for their absorption, hence clause 1(a) needs modification to this effect. 29. In Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corpn. [ (1990) 1 SCC 361 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 174] this Court observed : (SCC p. 364, para 6) “6. The main controversy centres round the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as to entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. The indisputable facts are that the petitioners were appointed between the period 1983 and 1986, ever since they have been working and have gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached to the posts held by them. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as dailyrated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications.” 19. Respondents 1 and 2 in the present case were duly appointed in the year 1981 under Section 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. It could not be shown to us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of their initial appointment any educational qualification was prescribed for the post the respondents were appointed and that they did not possess that qualification. The educational qualification which is now being imposed on them for regularization, after about 35 years of their working and experience is as per the subsequent Rules 1992. The educational qualification which is now being imposed on them for regularization, after about 35 years of their working and experience is as per the subsequent Rules 1992. We are of the view that once the respondents were appointed and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, since 1981, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the regularization on the ground that at the time of consideration of their regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 they did not fulfill the educational qualification prescribed in the Rules 1992, framed much after the appointment of the respondents. Nothing has been brought on record that there was any complaint against the respondents 1 and 2 for any deficiency in their work for lack of requisite educational qualification. It is not disputed that they have acquired sufficient experience. We are of the view that to disqualify them for regularization on the ground of educational qualification to the post by the subsequent Rules of 1992, after they worked for such long number of years, will not be justified. 20. The Tribunal has rightly directed to grant exemption from the educational qualification. 21. So far as the submission with respect to Government Memos dated 20.10.2011 and 29.12.2011 is concerned, that those were not challenged before the Tribunal and only the consequential orders were challenged, we are of the view that vide first Memo dated 20.10.2011, the rejection was on the ground that there were no sanctioned posts. The rejection was not on the ground that the respondents 1 and 2 lacked in educational qualification. By the subsequent Memo dated 29.12.2011, the rejection was on the ground that they did not possess requisite educational qualification of “read and write”. Any way the petitioners had to deny the regularization to respondents 1 and 2. 22. The Government Memos, dated 20.10.2011 and 29.12.2011 do not show and from the record nothing could be shown to us, even on our specific query, that those were communicated to the respondents 1 and 2. The same are internal correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4. 23. 22. The Government Memos, dated 20.10.2011 and 29.12.2011 do not show and from the record nothing could be shown to us, even on our specific query, that those were communicated to the respondents 1 and 2. The same are internal correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4. 23. Even if there was no challenge to the Government Memos, in our scrutiny, those government memos being contrary to what has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra), cannot be given effect to nor those memos can stand in the way of grant of relief to the respondents 1 and 2, by the Tribunal, which is as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised another argument that the respondents 1 and 2 have retired from service in the year 2016 and consequently, now their case for regularization cannot be considered. 25. The aforesaid argument deserves outright rejection. 26. The order of the Tribunal is dated 05.09.2012. The writ petition is pending since 2014. There was interim suspension of the order of the Tribunal vide interim order dated 06.03.2014. The respondents 1 and 2 even if attained superannuation in the mean time, they cannot be deprived of the benefit of the Order of the Tribunal. 27. The impugned orders have rightly been set aside by the Tribunal. 28. We do not find any error apparent or illegality to interfere with the Order of the Tribunal. 29. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 30. Notwithstanding the retirement of the respondents 1 and 2, the case of the respondents 1 and 2 shall be considered for their regularization, as per the directions of the Tribunal, and they shall be granted consequential retiral/monetary benefits, which the petitioner shall release within a period of 3 (three) months, from the date the copy of this judgment is received. 31. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.