ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Petitioner challenges Memos dated 19.11.2014 and 17.08.2015 on the ground of being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders in Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989, Writ Appeal No.1795 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No.1135 of 2014. A consequential direction is sought to respondents to regularize/absorb him as Junior Assistant/Typist from the date of initial appointment, duly considering his total length of service as clarified in the report dated 19.01.2000, with all consequential benefits. 2. The case of petitioner is that he was appointed in 1987 in respondent - State Board of Technical Education & Training (SBTET) as Junior Assistant/Typist on daily wage basis of Rs.15/- per day, which was enhanced from time to time. While in service, proceedings dated 17.06.1991 were issued by the 3 rd respondent proposing retrenchment of employees and certain employees were retrenched. Then, petitioner, along with others, filed Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989 seeking regularization, as there were vacancies. By order dated 04.07.1991, this Court directed respondents to consider cases for regularization by taking into account the length of service, with relaxation for those who worked for five years or more, and to maintain seniority under Section 2 5(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, ‘the Act’). Since positive orders were not granted, petitioner and others filed Writ Appeal No. 275 of 1992. The Division Bench, by order dated 31.01.1996, directed respondents to consider the eligibility of 55 persons for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. 2.1. Despite such orders, respondents did not consider petitioner’s case. On 31.08.1991, his services were terminated but within a month, he was re-engaged and such artificial breaks were repeatedly given until 31.12.1997, only to deny him regularization. Meanwhile, services of 18 candidates were regularized. Petitioner therefore, made repeated representations seeking regularization in terms of Section 2 5(B) of the Act and G.O.Ms.No.212, pointing out that he had worked for long periods continuously except for artificial breaks. Respondents, however, continued filling-up higher posts through deputation and promotion, but did not absorb petitioner against available vacancies. Representations were made on 06.10.2008, 24.12.2008, 01.07.2011, 20.08.2011, 25.08.2011, and 08.09.2011 which were rejected by Memo dated 11.05.2012 on the ground of pendency of Writ Petition No. 21772 of 2001. 2.2. Respondents, however, continued filling-up higher posts through deputation and promotion, but did not absorb petitioner against available vacancies. Representations were made on 06.10.2008, 24.12.2008, 01.07.2011, 20.08.2011, 25.08.2011, and 08.09.2011 which were rejected by Memo dated 11.05.2012 on the ground of pendency of Writ Petition No. 21772 of 2001. 2.2. Petitioner and others again filed Writ Petition No. 19401 of 2012, wherein this Court directed that cases be considered under Section 2 5(H) of the Act in existing or future vacancies, with relaxation of age, and keeping in view G.O.Ms.No.212. Against this, Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 2013 was filed by respondents while Writ Appeal No.1135 of 2014 was filed by petitioner and others for clarifications. By the common judgment dated 08.08.2014, the Division Bench directed that entire service from inception must be counted under G.O.Ms.No.212, those qualifying should be taken into service forthwith without back wages, and those not qualifying should be re-engaged under Section 2 5(H) or given other benefits like retrospective regularization. Instead of implementing the above directions, respondents issued Memo dated 19.11.2014 impugned in this Writ Petition, stating that petitioner did not fulfil the conditions under G.O.Ms.No.212 and would only be considered for re-engagement. Challenging this, Contempt Case No. 1982 of 2014 was filed and the same was also closed after observing that reasons in the memo were not cogent, with a direction to furnish proper reasons. Thereafter, Memo dated 17.08.2015 which is also impugned was issued, showing the number of days petitioner had worked and again stating that he did not fulfil conditions as on the cut-off date 25.11.1993. However, petitioner was also asked to give willingness vide Memo dated 24.08.2015, and he submitted willingness on 28.05.2015, but no further action was taken. 2.3. According to petitioner, these memos are contrary to the orders of the Division Bench. He relies on Memo dated 10.12.1993, wherein his name reflected at Sl.No.26, proving that he was in service as on the cut-off date 25.11.1993. Respondents themselves in Contempt Case No. 473 of 1991, admitted that seniority of daily wage clerks was determined by the length of service, ignoring small breaks of less than four months. In the report dated 19.01.2000, it was clarified that regularization was based on length of service and not on man days. Despite these admissions, respondents later rejected his claim, which is arbitrary, is what petitioner claims. 2.4. In the report dated 19.01.2000, it was clarified that regularization was based on length of service and not on man days. Despite these admissions, respondents later rejected his claim, which is arbitrary, is what petitioner claims. 2.4. Petitioner further states that similarly-situated person Smt. Usha Rani, who was disengaged along with him, was regularized based on length of service vide proceedings dated 04.09.1996. Thus, rejection of his case while accepting hers is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16. Petitioner also relies on the finding in Writ Petition No. 19401 of 2012, where this Court held that as per Memo dated 10.12.1993, petitioner was in service as on 25.11.1993 and there was nothing in G.O.Ms.No.212 to exclude seasonal or casual workers. Hence, he fulfilled the conditions. 2.5. Petitioner further states that after 1997, vacancies arose due to promotions, retirement and death of Junior Assistants, but his case was never considered. The State Board of Technical Education and Training and Commissioner of Technical Education, Hyderabad, by letter dated 19.11.2010, pointed out that polytechnics increased by five-fold from 56 to 304 and intake from 8,200 to 65,520, resulting in a huge increase in workload while sanctioned staff remained static. The Higher Education Department, by U.O.No.17345/TE.II/10 dated 25.06.2011, proposed sanction of additional posts including Junior Assistants/Senior Assistants. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 06.07.2011 sanctioning posts. Yet, respondents undertook promotions to higher posts without filling Junior Assistant vacancies, thereby denying petitioner the benefit of regularization despite clear judicial directions. 3. On behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, counter-affidavit was filed stating that petitioner was engaged as a Daily Wage Clerk (DWC) on 07-10-1987 for seasonal work and his services were utilized till 31-08-1991 on need basis, and he was disengaged on 31-08-1991. Thereafter, he was re-engaged in January 1992 and his services were again utilized only on need basis till 31-12-1997, when he was finally disengaged. It is specifically asserted that petitioner never performed duties for a continuous period of five years, therefore, the question of regularization does not arise. The Board of Technical Education and Training is a statutory body constituted under the A.P. Education Act, 1982, vide G.O.Ms.No.140, dated 24-04-1984. Rule 5 of the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh (Establishment, Organisation and Jurisdiction) Rules, 1983 deals with appointment of the Secretary, its functions, and other employees of the Board. The Board of Technical Education and Training is a statutory body constituted under the A.P. Education Act, 1982, vide G.O.Ms.No.140, dated 24-04-1984. Rule 5 of the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh (Establishment, Organisation and Jurisdiction) Rules, 1983 deals with appointment of the Secretary, its functions, and other employees of the Board. Under sub-clause (c), the Board is empowered to create posts and appoint officers only with prior approval of the State Government. It was also provided that officers and staff may be taken on deputation from the Department of Technical Education. Accordingly, the Board started with ministerial and class-IV posts sanctioned under G.O.Ms.No.160 LEN & TE Department, dated 31-05-1984. Since the sanctioned posts were not adequate to meet the quantum of work, the Board engaged Daily Wage Clerks and Labourers during peak load or seasonal work as per provisions available in G.O.Ms.No.160 at Item 22. Thus, it became a convention that DWCs were engaged whenever there was pressure of work. Usually, more number of DWCs than required were engaged so that even if some failed to attend, the time-bound work of the Board would not be hampered. 3.1. Respondents further state that petitioner had not worked continuously for five years as on 25-11-1993, which was the cut-off date in G.O.Ms.No.212, and his case was rejected by order dated 14-11-1996 which order was not challenged by petitioner, hence it attained finality. Therefore, it is not open for him to re-agitate the matter after a lapse of twenty years as if the Board has failed to implement the directions of this Court. It is also stated, pursuant to the order in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989, the Board prepared a seniority list of employees taking into consideration length of service and date of appointment as on 31-08-1991; available posts were filled from the seniority list of DWCs. by following roster points and the remaining DWCs/DWLs were terminated by paying compensation and one month wages. Petitioner accepted compensation. Thereafter, seasonal work was occasionally entrusted to daily wage employees till 18-12-1993. It is further stated that Act 2 of 1994 came into force with effect from 15-01-1994, which prohibits daily wage appointments and regularization of temporary appointments. Section 7 of the Act provides that no temporary or daily wage employee has a right to claim regularization. Petitioner accepted compensation. Thereafter, seasonal work was occasionally entrusted to daily wage employees till 18-12-1993. It is further stated that Act 2 of 1994 came into force with effect from 15-01-1994, which prohibits daily wage appointments and regularization of temporary appointments. Section 7 of the Act provides that no temporary or daily wage employee has a right to claim regularization. Further, Government vide G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 26-02-1991 while granting additional posts directed to dispense with services of daily wage employees. Accordingly, services of DWCs were dispensed with on 31-08-1991 as per law. Between 31-08-1991 and 18-12-1993, engagement of workers was only on seasonal basis and not continuous. After Act 2 of 1994, DWCs. could not be re-engaged even for seasonal work. Respondents submit that as per the judgment dated 04-07-1991 in Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989, the Board was permitted to terminate services of DWCs. who were not required by paying them compensation, which was duly implemented. Therefore, petitioner’s case for absorption or regularization does not arise. 3.2. It is stated, petitioner has not been engaged after 31-12-1997. As per G.O.Ms.No.140, dated 24-04-1984 and Rule 5 of the SBTET A.P. Rules, 1983, staff requirement was met through deputation from the Department of Technical Education. In W.P.M.P.No.27416 of 2001 in W.P.No.21772 of 2001, dated 17-10-2001, this Court directed that respondents shall not fill any posts except backward-reserved vacancies. In view of this interim direction, the Board issued Memo dated 11-05-2012 stating that the case of petitioner could not be considered during pendency of the writ petition. Respondents rely on Memo dated 10-12-1993, which is a usual appointment order for seasonal clerical/labour work, clearly mentioning that services would be terminated after completion of the work. On verification, it was found that petitioner did not fulfill the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994 which included prescribed qualifications, age limits, observance of reservations, existence of clear vacancies, and minimum five years of continuous service as on 25-11-1993. 3.3. This Court in Writ Petition No. 7123 of 1987 and batch held that the Board, being a statutory body conducting technical examinations, is not an industry under Section 2 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the ID Act has no application to the Board or its employees. Secondly, Government in G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 26-02-1991 had directed retrenchment of DWCs., and accordingly, some DWCs. were terminated with retrenchment compensation. Therefore, the ID Act has no application to the Board or its employees. Secondly, Government in G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 26-02-1991 had directed retrenchment of DWCs., and accordingly, some DWCs. were terminated with retrenchment compensation. This Court in its order dated 04-07-1991 in W.P.No.18254 of 1989 issued directions including preparation of seniority lists, filling additional sanctioned posts with daily wage employees, following reservation and roster rules, and preference for daily wagers under Section 2 5-H of the I.D. Act. It was also directed that those with five years of service may be considered sympathetically for relaxation in recruitment to regular posts. It was left open to the Board to terminate services of daily wagers not needed by paying compensation. These directions, the respondents state, establish that the ID Act was not directly made applicable, but recruitment and regularization were subject to the said directions. 3.4. Respondents further state that in compliance with the orders, seniority lists were prepared and posts were filled. Remaining DWCs. were terminated with retrenchment compensation and one month wages. Petitioner also filed Contempt Case No.473 of 1991 which was dismissed with observation that the directions apply only at the time of recruitment, and it was not a fit case for contempt. It is emphasized that after Writ Appeal No. 275 of 1992 disposed on 31-01-1996, directions in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989 merged with those in the Writ Appeal. The Division Bench directed that eligibility for regularization be considered only as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994. 3.5. Writ Petition No. 7923 of 1991 filed by the retrenched Daily Wage Employees of the Board was disposed of on 04-07-1991 with the following order: "that some of such employees who have put a number of years service in dally wages do not fulfill the requirements of educational qualifications or are age barred for being regularly appointed to the post of Junior Assistants or Attenders. In the fact of this case the Board will sympathetically consider the question of granting relaxation or exemptions in case of such persons who have worked for sufficiently long period like five years or more which regularizing the services of the daily rated employees. In the fact of this case the Board will sympathetically consider the question of granting relaxation or exemptions in case of such persons who have worked for sufficiently long period like five years or more which regularizing the services of the daily rated employees. For all future appointments or terminations the Board will ensure that there is no violation of any law creating a situation as in this case when it is obliged to pay for more persons than needed and prefer persons without any advertisement or sponsorship by employment exchange. This direction in this case means that the persons who had worked earlier on daily wage basis will be preferred for appointment". 3.6. It is also pointed out that in Writ Petition No. 19401 of 2012, the learned Single Judge directed consideration of petitioners’ cases under Section 25 -H of the I.D. Act. The Board filed Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 2013 against this, wherein the Division Bench by order dated 08-08-2014 directed that service rendered from inception be considered, that those fulfilling G.O.Ms.No.212 conditions be regularized without back wages, and that others be re-engaged under Section 25 -H when work exists. The Board thereafter issued Memo dated 19-11-2014 informing petitioner of the decision. Alleging non-implementation, Contempt Case No.1982 of 2014 was filed and disposed of on 13-03-2015 with a direction to furnish reasons. The Board complied with and issued Memo dated 17-08-2015. Another Contempt Case No.1931 of 2015 was filed which was dismissed on 25-11-2016 as misconceived, with liberty to seek remedies as per earlier observations. 3.7. Respondents clarify that appointments of certain persons like Smt. Usha Rani were strictly as per seniority list prepared under Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989. Petitioner, being junior, was not discriminated. They also state that six Superintendents and eleven Senior Assistants on deputation from DTE were repatriated as per orders in Writ Petition No.8544 of 2008. Promotions were made from feeder cadres accordingly. It is further stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 held that casual or daily wage employees cannot claim regularization unless appointed in accordance with rules and selection process. This constitutional bench judgment is binding and applies to the present case. Promotions were made from feeder cadres accordingly. It is further stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 held that casual or daily wage employees cannot claim regularization unless appointed in accordance with rules and selection process. This constitutional bench judgment is binding and applies to the present case. Similarly, in A. Manjula Bashini v. Managing Director , A.P. Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd. , the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the cut- off date in G.O.Ms.No.212 and the amendments under Act 3/1998 and Act 27/1998. It was held that only those who completed five years continuous service as on 25-11-1993 are eligible for regularization, and others are not entitled. 3.8. Respondents conclude by asserting that the Board has at all times implemented the directions of this Court and the Government Orders including G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 26-02-1991, G.O.Ms.No.140 dated 24-04-1984 and G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994. Petitioner has not satisfied the main condition of completing five years continuous service as on 25-11-1993, even after counting Sundays and holidays. His engagements were seasonal and not continuous. He accepted compensation on termination and never challenged the rejection order dated 14-11-1996. Therefore, he is not entitled to regularization or absorption. It is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. Petitioner filed reply to the above counter stating that in the counter, it is stated that SBTET stated that they recruited only SC, ST, PH and Compassionate appointments and they have not explained why they did not fill up the OC and BC categories posts. In several memos filed earlier before this Court, SBTET themselves stated that services of the retrenched Daily Wage Clerks would be filled up on regular basis as and when vacancies arise, in compliance with the judgment of this Court dated 04.07.1991. It is pointed out that there are number of vacancies in the cadre of Junior Assistant and Typist in SBTET, which was admitted and submitted in different affidavits by the respondents themselves, and therefore prays this Court may direct the respondents to regularize his services against the existing vacancies of Junior Assistant or Typist. 4.1. Petitioner clarifies that respondents themselves on several occasions issued memos stating that services would be regularized in accordance with this Court judgment dated 04.07.1991, as and when vacancies arose, based on the seniority list prepared by the Board in accordance with the said judgment. 4.1. Petitioner clarifies that respondents themselves on several occasions issued memos stating that services would be regularized in accordance with this Court judgment dated 04.07.1991, as and when vacancies arose, based on the seniority list prepared by the Board in accordance with the said judgment. The petitioner therefore, reiterates his entitlement to be considered for regularization as per the directions of this Court. It is stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.160, dated 31.05.1984, which was filed along with the counter, the Government sanctioned various posts in different cadres, including 24 posts of Junior Assistants, 12 posts of Senior Assistants and 6 posts of Typists. In the said G.O., sanction was accorded for deputation of officers as shown in Annexure-II to the State Board of Technical Education and Training for a period of three years from the date of taking charge. Petitioner states that after completion of the three-year deputation, himself and other employees were appointed in 1987 as Junior Assistants and Typists on daily wage basis, but they were in fact working against the sanctioned posts. Hence, the contention of respondents that daily-wage clerks were engaged only when there was pressure of work or for seasonal work and that more number of DWCs than required were called for, is unsustainable. Petitioner and other employees, though working in sanctioned posts, have been requesting the authorities to regularize their services. The Board, however, retrenched them under Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by paying retrenchment compensation w.e.f. 18.06.1991. 4.2. Against such retrenchment, the affected employees approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing W.P.No.18254 of 1989 seeking directions to continue them as DWCs and for consequential direction to regularize their services. The Hon’ble High Court disposed of the writ petitions by common order dated 04.07.1991 directing the respondents to comply with the requirement of preference as applicable under Section 2 5-H of the I.D. Act, keeping in view the length of service. It was also observed by the Hon’ble Court that some of the employees did not fulfil educational qualification or age criteria, and the Board, on humanitarian grounds, considered granting relaxation while regularizing daily rated employees. Petitioners filed Writ Appeals No. 275 and 1207 of 1992, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. It was also observed by the Hon’ble Court that some of the employees did not fulfil educational qualification or age criteria, and the Board, on humanitarian grounds, considered granting relaxation while regularizing daily rated employees. Petitioners filed Writ Appeals No. 275 and 1207 of 1992, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. The Hon’ble Division Bench recorded the submission of the Board’s counsel that a seniority list of daily wage employees had been prepared pursuant to the judgment and as and when vacancies arose, they were being called in order of seniority for regularization and out of 73 DWCs, services of 18 had already been regularized while 55 remained to be considered. The Division Bench by common order dated 31.01.1996 directed the Board to consider the cases of the remaining 55 within three months in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, and regularize eligible employees. 4.3. It is further stated, after filing the Writ Appeals, petitioner and other similarly-situated employees were taken back and continued in service till 31.12.1997, their names being included in the seniority list. Petitioner was eligible, possessing qualifications and being within the age limit at the date of entry into service. Some employees were subsequently considered for regularization. Petitioner made several representations dated 06.10.2008, 24.12.2008 and 01.07.2011, yet respondents continued to aver that petitioner was not eligible under G.O.Ms.No.212 and disengaged him, which is wholly illegal and unsustainable. It is also stated, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 06.07.2011, based on the proposal of the Director of Technical Education Department for creation of posts in the cadre of Junior Assistants, Senior Assistants, Attenders, Computer Operator, etcetera. The Government sanctioned 7 posts of Junior Assistants, 2 posts of Senior Assistants and 2 posts of Superintendents, besides permitting the Chairman, SBTET to engage Computer Programmer, Computer Operator and Office Subordinates. He states that himself and others ought to have been accommodated in the vacancies created under G.O.Ms.No.160, dated 31.05.1984, after the deputation period, or in the vacancies created in G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 06.07.2011. Accordingly, he submitted representations dated 20.08.2011, 25.08.2011 and 08.09.2011. However, by memo dated 11.05.2012, respondents informed that the request could not be considered in view of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 21772 of 2001 which was closed on 19.09.2019, hence, the reason given no longer survives. 4.4. Respondents, according to petitioner, omitted the number of days worked to deprive him of rightful regularization. However, by memo dated 11.05.2012, respondents informed that the request could not be considered in view of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 21772 of 2001 which was closed on 19.09.2019, hence, the reason given no longer survives. 4.4. Respondents, according to petitioner, omitted the number of days worked to deprive him of rightful regularization. He asserts that he was working as on 25.11.1993 and had put in the requisite service. Respondents cannot now turn around and state that the Board is not an industry under Section 2 (j) of the I.D. Act, when earlier retrenchment was carried out under Section 2 5-H of the I.D. Act. Subsequent to the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7963 of 1991 and batch, the names of petitioner and others were included in the seniority list for regularization, and they were taken back into service subject to certain conditions, including forfeiture of recruitment if appointment was not accepted, and deletion from seniority if full sessional work was not attended. Petitioner accepted such conditions and continued in service, albeit for meagre salary, in the hope of regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. 4.5. Seniority list was prepared based on length of service and roster points are illegal and arbitrary. Respondents admit that length of service was considered for re-engagement, but to evade regularization, they deliberately engaged DWCs. for short spells, then replaced them with others, which amounts to unfair labour practice. It is pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in multiple decisions that contract employees cannot be replaced by other contract employees and are entitled to continuation. The averments in para-10(C) demonstrates that respondents did not follow procedure of regularization under Writ Appeal No. 275 of 1992. 4.6. Petitioner refers to Writ Petition No.19401 of 2012, wherein he along with others sought absorption as Junior Assistants and Typists pursuant to the orders in Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989 and Writ Appeal No. 272 of 1992. Writ Petition was disposed on 12.08.2013 and in para-6 of the order, it was specifically recorded that petitioner had worked as on 25.11.1993 in seasonal/clerical work under memo dated 10.12.1993 and that there was nothing in G.O.Ms.No.212 excluding such employees. Writ Petition was disposed on 12.08.2013 and in para-6 of the order, it was specifically recorded that petitioner had worked as on 25.11.1993 in seasonal/clerical work under memo dated 10.12.1993 and that there was nothing in G.O.Ms.No.212 excluding such employees. The Court recorded that petitioner worked from 1991 to 1997, putting in more than 5 years service, and directed consideration of his case under Section 25 - H of the I.D. Act, 1947, in existing or future vacancies, with relaxation of age. It is further stated that the Board filed Writ Appeal No.1795 of 2013 and 1135 of 2014 against the order dated 12.08.2013. The Hon’ble Division Bench observed that petitioners were engaged in 1991, retrenched in 1997, and taken back under Section 25 -H of the I.D. Act, and that service rendered prior to 1992 must also be taken into account under G.O.Ms.No.212. The Division Bench directed that those qualifying under G.O.Ms.No.212 should be taken into service forthwith, though without back wages. 5. Heard learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondent – State. 6. This Court has carefully considered the pleadings of the parties, documentary material placed on record and the submissions advanced. 7. It is not in dispute that petitioner was initially engaged in 1987 as Junior Assistant/Typist on daily wage basis and continued in service with intermittent breaks till 31.12.1997. It is also admitted that proceedings dated 17.06.1991 were issued retrenching certain daily wage clerks, and petitioner along with others approached this Court in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989. By the common order dated 04.07.1991, this Court directed respondents to consider regularization keeping in view the length of service and the principle of Section 25 (H) of the Act. Subsequently, Writ Appeal No.275 of 1992 was preferred and the Division Bench by order dated 31.01.1996 directed respondents to consider the eligibility of 55 persons, including petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. Out of them, 18 employees were regularized, while the case of petitioner was rejected. 8. The grievance of petitioner is that rejection of his case under Memos dated 19.11.2014 and 17.08.2015 is contrary to the binding directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989, Writ Appeal No.275 of 1992, Writ Petition No.19401 of 2012, Writ Appeal No.1795 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No.1135 of 2014. 8. The grievance of petitioner is that rejection of his case under Memos dated 19.11.2014 and 17.08.2015 is contrary to the binding directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989, Writ Appeal No.275 of 1992, Writ Petition No.19401 of 2012, Writ Appeal No.1795 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No.1135 of 2014. He asserts that his name finds place in the seniority list prepared under Memo dated 10.12.1993, thereby proving that he was in service as on the crucial cut-off date 25.11.1993. It is also pointed out that similarly-situated employee Smt. Usha Rani was regularized, while denial to him amounts to hostile discrimination. 9. On the other hand, respondents contend that petitioner had not rendered five years of continuous service as on 25.11.1993, which is the essential requirement under G.O.Ms.No.212, hence his case was rightly rejected. It is further contended that petitioner accepted retrenchment compensation, did not challenge the rejection order dated 14.11.1996, and therefore cannot reopen the matter. Respondents also rely on the prohibition contained in Act 2 of 1994 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi , [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] to submit that daily wage appointments do not confer any right of regularization. 10. In view of the above, the following issues arise for consideration: 1) Whether petitioner was in service as on 25.11.1993 and fulfilled the conditions under G.O.Ms.No.212? ii) Whether the impugned memos dated 19.11.2014 and 17.08.2015 are in conformity with the earlier directions of this Court? (iii) Whether denial of regularization amounts to discrimination, particularly in view of regularization of similarly-situated employees? 11. POINT No.1 : A perusal of the record discloses that in Memo dated 10.12.1993, petitioner’s name was shown at Sl.No.26, which proves that he was very much in service as on 25.11.1993. Further, the report dated 19.01.2000 clarifies that eligibility for regularization was to be determined on the basis of length of service and not man-days. Thus, the plea of respondents that petitioner had not worked continuously for five years cannot be sustained, since artificial breaks cannot defeat the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.212. 12. POINT No. 2: The Division Bench judgment dated 08.08.2014 in Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No. 1135 of 2014 clearly directed that entire service from inception must be taken into account. 12. POINT No. 2: The Division Bench judgment dated 08.08.2014 in Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No. 1135 of 2014 clearly directed that entire service from inception must be taken into account. Respondents were bound to implement the same by considering the case of petitioner for regularization if he otherwise satisfied conditions of G.O.Ms.No.212. Instead of doing so, they rejected his case citing non-fulfilment of conditions, without assigning cogent reasons, which amounts to deliberate non-compliance of judicial directions. 13. POINT No. 3: Petitioner specifically established that Smt. Usha Rani, who stood on the same footing, was regularized. No plausible explanation has been given by respondents for treating petitioner differently. Such selective regularization violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Reliance on Uma Devi’s case (supra) is misplaced, inasmuch as the Division Bench orders, which specifically dealt with petitioner’s case, were rendered much after the said decision and have attained finality. Once the Division Bench issued positive directions, respondents cannot take shelter under general principles laid down in Uma Devi’s case (supra). 14. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that impugned Memos dated 19.11.2014 and 17.08.2015 are unsustainable in law, as they are contrary to binding directions of this Court and discriminatory in nature. Petitioner, having been in service as on 25.11.1993, is entitled to be considered for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, and denial thereof amounts to arbitrary action. 15. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, setting aside the memos dated 19.11.2014 and 17.08.2015. Respondents are directed to regularise / absorb petitioner from the date of his initial appointment as per the order in Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989 and directions (a) and (b) issued in Writ Appeal Nos. 1795 of 2013 and 1135 of 2014 and clarification given by the Board dated 19.01.2000, duly taking into account the total length of service of petitioner from the date of first engagement together with all consequential benefits. No costs. 16. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.