ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Petitioners approached this Court to declare the memo dated 19.11.2014 and memo dated 17.08.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench and to declare that they are entitled for regularization / absorption in terms of Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989 and batch dated 04.07.1991 and Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No.1135 of 2014 dated 08.08.2014 in the then existing vacancies and consequently to direct respondents to consider the case of petitioners for regularization / absorption from the date of initial appointment duly taking the total length of service of petitioners from the date of first engagement together with all consequential benefits. 2. The case of petitioners is that petitioner No.1 was appointed as Junior Assistant in 1987 on daily wage basis, Petitioners 2 to 4 also joined in 1987 as Junior Assistant / Typist. While so, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 17.06.1991 proposing to retrench the workmen / employees in the respondent board. Pursuant thereto, some employees were retrenched. Challenging the said action, Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989 came to be filed seeking regularization of their services since vacancies existed as on that date. This Court passed a common order dated 04.07.1991 in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989 and batch directing respondents to consider the case of petitioners therein for regularization by taking into consideration the length of service and also granting relaxation and exceptions in cases of persons who had worked for sufficiently longer period of five years or more. The Hon’ble Court also observed that seniority should be maintained as per Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, ‘the Act’. Aggrieved by the absence of positive directions, Writ Appeal No.275 of 1992 was preferred and the Division Bench disposed of the same on 31.01.1996 directing respondents to consider the eligibility of 55 persons for regularization in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. However, respondents for the reasons best known, did not consider petitioners’ cases for regularization. Their services were dispensed with on 31.08.1991. After a month, they were again taken into service but with artificial breaks, clearly intended only to evade regularization. Petitioners were continued till 31.12.1997 with such artificial breaks. Meanwhile, respondents regularized the services of 18 candidates. Petitioners also submitted representations for regularization by considering their total length of service under Section 25(B) of the Act and G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. After a month, they were again taken into service but with artificial breaks, clearly intended only to evade regularization. Petitioners were continued till 31.12.1997 with such artificial breaks. Meanwhile, respondents regularized the services of 18 candidates. Petitioners also submitted representations for regularization by considering their total length of service under Section 25(B) of the Act and G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. Instead of accommodating petitioners, respondents deputed employees from Directorate of Technical Education into posts of Senior Assistant / Superintendent in the Board. After their repatriation, Technical Board employees were promoted to those posts, yet petitioners’ cases for absorption were ignored. Consequently, representations dated 06.10.2008, 24.12.2008, 01.07.2011, 20.08.2011, 25.08.2011 and 08.09.2011 were made. In reply, memo No.SBTET/C1/1155/2011-DWE dated 11.05.2012 was issued stating that the petitioners’ request cannot be considered in view of pendency of WP No.21772 of 2001 filed by others and interim orders therein. 2.1. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.19401 of 2012 seeking declaration that they were fully eligible and qualified to be absorbed and regularized as Junior Assistant / Typist in the respondent Board in terms of the judgment in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989 and Writ Appeal No.275 of 1992 dated 31.01.1996. This Court by order dated 12.08.2013 considered G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act and allowed the Writ Petition directing respondents to consider petitioners’ cases in the existing vacancies or vacancies that may arise, relaxing the age limit in view of long pendency. Instead of compliance, respondents filed Writ Appeal No.1795 of 2013 and petitioners filed Writ Appeal No.1135 of 2014 against adverse observations. Both the Writ Appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 08.08.2014 with clear directions: (a) respondents shall take into account entire service rendered by petitioners from inception for benefit under G.O.Ms.No.212, (b) petitioners qualifying under G.O.Ms.No.212 shall be taken into service forthwith without entitlement to back wages, and (c) petitioners not qualifying shall be re-engaged under Section 25(H) as and when work exists or given other benefits such as retrospective regularization. 2.2. Instead of following the said directives, respondents issued memo dated 19.11.2014 citing G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and claiming petitioners had not fulfilled the prescribed conditions and decided to deny regularization, stating only re-engagement under Section 25(H). Petitioners challenged the same by filing Contempt Case No.1982 of 2014. 2.2. Instead of following the said directives, respondents issued memo dated 19.11.2014 citing G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and claiming petitioners had not fulfilled the prescribed conditions and decided to deny regularization, stating only re-engagement under Section 25(H). Petitioners challenged the same by filing Contempt Case No.1982 of 2014. During its pendency, the said memo was placed before the Court and the contempt was closed with observation that cogent reasons were not mentioned and respondents must furnish reasons within three weeks. In compliance, respondents issued memo dated 17.08.2015 showing the number of days worked and reiterating that petitioners did not fulfill conditions under G.O.Ms.No.212 as on cut-off date. Consequently, benefit of regularization was denied. Further memo dated 24.08.2015 was issued seeking willingness to work and petitioners gave willingness on 28.05.2015. However, no posting orders were issued. Petitioners contend that despite specific directions of the Division Bench to consider total length of service, respondents have not complied. Thus Contempt Case No. 1931 of 2015 was filed, which was closed on 25.11.2016 with liberty to approach appropriate forum, hence the present Writ Petition. 2.3. Petitioners state that they were engaged in 1987 on daily wage basis and worked continuously till 1997 with artificial breaks, thereby entitled under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and Section 25(B) of the Act. They state that in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989 vide judgment dated 04.07.1991, some employees were regularized while petitioners were assured that vacancies arising would be filled as per seniority list of 04.07.1991. In 1997, vacancies arose but their representations including the one dated 14.09.1999 were not considered. One similarly-situated appellant in Writ Appeal No.1135 of 2014 was accommodated as Record Assistant and the Higher Education Department was requested to furnish particulars of daily wage clerks regularized. The clarification by respondent dated 19.01.2000 confirmed that length of service, not man days, was considered. Division Bench directives of 08.08.2014 also mandated considering total length of service. Petitioners assert that contrary to this, proceedings dated 19.11.2014 and 17.08.2015 were issued wrongly stating that they did not fulfil conditions of G.O.Ms.No.212 as on cut-off date 25.11.1993. 2.4. It is stated that memo dated 10.12.1993 proves that petitioners were in service on the cut-off date, their names being at Sl.Nos. 6, 10, 20 and 07 respectively, hence, they fulfilled G.O.Ms.No.212. 2.4. It is stated that memo dated 10.12.1993 proves that petitioners were in service on the cut-off date, their names being at Sl.Nos. 6, 10, 20 and 07 respectively, hence, they fulfilled G.O.Ms.No.212. The order in Writ Petition No.19401 of 2012 at para 6 also held that seasonal clerical / labour workers are entitled to benefit under G.O.Ms.No.212. Thus, the impugned memos are contrary and illegal. Further, respondents’ own counter in Contempt Case No. 473 of 1991 admitted that seniority was determined as per length of service ignoring smaller breaks and considering provisions of Section 25(B). Now denying the same is arbitrary and discriminatory. Petitioners point out that similarly-situated Smt. Usha Rani, Receptionist, disengaged along with them, was regularized under proceedings dated 04.09.1996, while petitioners were denied the same. 2.5. It is also stated, vide letter dated 19.11.2010, State Board of Technical Education and Training and Commissioner of Technical Education, Hyderabad highlighted the five-fold increase in Polytechnics (from 56 to 304) and eightfold intake increase (8200 to 65,520) from 1984-85 to 2010-11, resulting in enormous workload, but sanctioned staff remained static. Accordingly, Government sanctioned additional posts vide G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 06.07.2011 including Junior Assistant / Senior Assistant, but respondents undertook only promotions without filling Junior Assistant posts, thereby denying petitioners despite vacancies. It is further stated that after 1997, numerous vacancies arose due to promotions, retirement and death of Junior Assistants. No recruitments were undertaken, yet petitioners’ cases were not considered. Petitioners have been continuously fighting, but respondents denied regularization on untenable grounds despite availability of vacancies, contrary to the orders passed in Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals mentioned above. 3. In the affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated, the State Board of Technical Education and Training after December, 1997, did not appoint Daily Wage Clerk for any of the clerical works except reserved SC, ST, PH, Compassionate appointments and internal promotions. In terms of the Judgment of this Court, dated 04-07-1991 in Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989 and batch, it is open for the Board to terminate the services of daily wage clerks who were not needed by paying them compensation, as per the Orders of the Hon'ble High court. Accordingly, filled the available vacancies and remaining daily wage clerks were retrenched, after paying the compensation. Petitioners have taken compensation also. Accordingly, filled the available vacancies and remaining daily wage clerks were retrenched, after paying the compensation. Petitioners have taken compensation also. None of the juniors to Petitioners in the seniority list of Daily wage clerks worked is appointed or regularized in the service in the State Board of Technical Education and Training. 4. Petitioners in their reply state that Respondent No.3 stated that after December 1997, recruitment was made only in the categories of SC, ST, PH, compassionate appointments, and internal promotions, and that no daily wage clerks were appointed thereafter. This explanation is not acceptable since respondents have not explained why posts belonging to OC and BC categories were not filled up. It is further submitted that this stand of the respondent contradicts the position taken by the same authority earlier before this Court in various memos, where it was specifically represented that the services of retrenched daily wage clerks would be filled up on a regular basis as and when vacancies arose, in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 04.07.1991 in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989 and batch. Petitioners also submit that there are several vacancies of Junior Assistant and Typists in the respondent Board, which fact has been admitted by Respondents in their affidavits filed in earlier proceedings. It is therefore requested that their services be regularized in the said vacancies of Junior Assistant and Typist posts, since they were engaged long back and have been waiting for absorption in terms of the judgment dated 04.07.1991. 4.1. Petitioners further state that Respondent No.3 stated that their services were retrenched as per the judgment of this Court dated 04.07.1991 and compensation was paid. This is only a partial statement of the effect of the judgment. They state that respondent Board itself, on several occasions, issued memos assuring that services of petitioners and other similarly-placed daily wage clerks would be regularized as per the said judgment as and when vacancies arose. The Board had also prepared a seniority list of daily wage clerks for this purpose. Petitioners state that having prepared such a seniority list and issued repeated memos to the effect that regularization would be done on the basis of the said list, respondents cannot now deny regularization by only relying on the fact of retrenchment and compensation. The Board had also prepared a seniority list of daily wage clerks for this purpose. Petitioners state that having prepared such a seniority list and issued repeated memos to the effect that regularization would be done on the basis of the said list, respondents cannot now deny regularization by only relying on the fact of retrenchment and compensation. Petitioners emphasize that judgment of this Court dated 04.07.1991 did not merely permit termination with compensation but also specifically directed consideration of regularization based on length of service and seniority. 4.2. Petitioners further state that the present stand of Respondent No.3 is inconsistent with its own earlier admissions and the assurances given before this Court. They contend that refusal to regularize their services despite the existence of vacancies and despite the assurance of the respondents is arbitrary and contrary to law. Accordingly, petitioners state that there are existing vacancies of Junior Assistant and Typist posts, the respondents themselves had earlier admitted the obligation to regularize retrenched daily wage clerks as per the High Court judgment dated 04.07.1991, and that denial of regularization now on the sole ground of retrenchment and compensation is unsustainable. They therefore, request this Court to direct respondents to regularize their services in the existing vacancies of Junior Assistant and Typist posts in the respondent Board in accordance with the said judgment and the seniority list prepared by the Board. 5. Heard petitioners - parties in person and Sri S Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of respondents and perused the record. 6. A perusal of the material on record shows that this Court by order dated 04.07.1991 in Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989 and batch, directed consideration of regularization for those entitled on the basis of length of service and indicated that relaxation and exceptions might be given to persons who had worked for appreciable periods. The Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 275 of 1992 and the later Division Bench order dated 08.08.2014 in Writ Appeals No.1795 of 2013 and 1135 of 2014 have given precise directions regarding consideration of the entire service rendered from inception for the purposes of G.O.Ms.No.212 and have stipulated the consequences for those who qualify and those who do not. Those are the authoritative directions against which the Board was obliged to act. 7. Those are the authoritative directions against which the Board was obliged to act. 7. The Board’s own contemporaneous record materially supports petitioners’ claim that they were in service on the relevant cut-off date. Memo dated 10.12.1993, on which petitioners rely, lists them at Sl.Nos. 6, 10, 20 and 07 and directs attendance for seasonal clerical/labour work for the period 18.11.1993 to 18.12.1993. Writ Petition No. 19401 of 2012 accepted that such seasonal engagements amount to being in service as on 25.11.1993 for the purposes of G.O.Ms.No.212. On the face of these records, petitioners were shown by the Board itself to have been in service as on the cut- off date. The Board’s subsequent reliance on the cut-off date and on purported non-fulfilment of G.O.Ms.No.212 conditions in Memo dated 19.11.2014 and Memo dated 17.08.2015 is therefore, inconsistent with the Board’s own earlier entries and communications. 8. It is also of significance that the Division Bench has repeatedly required the Board to take into account the entire service rendered from inception for the purpose of extending benefit under G.O.Ms.No.212 and directed that those who qualify, be absorbed forthwith (without back wages) while those who do not qualify be re-engaged under Section 25(H) as and when work exists. The memos relied upon by the Board which conclude that petitioners did not fulfil the conditions prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.212 are therefore, in direct tension with the earlier judicial directives which contemplated a sympathetic and substantive consideration of total service and seniority. Contempt Case No. 1982 of 2014 was closed only after the Board was directed to furnish cogent reasons and were given a period of three weeks; the record demonstrates that the Board thereafter issued the impugned Memo dated 17.08.2015 which continued to record ineligibility on the basis of man days/ cut- off computations. The manner in which the Board has oscillated between representations that regularization would be effected and later taking a contrary stand on technical grounds, without demonstrating a proper, transparent and consistent application of criteria or explaining why the petitioners — whose names appear in the Board’s own list of December 1993 — should be excluded, discloses arbitrariness and lack of bona fide compliance with the directions of this Court and with the Board’s own prior communications. 9. Respondents’ contention that retrenchment followed by payment of compensation precludes any further claim needs to be examined in the light of the judicial directions. 9. Respondents’ contention that retrenchment followed by payment of compensation precludes any further claim needs to be examined in the light of the judicial directions. The orders dated 04.07.1991, 31.01.1996 and 08.08.2014 would show that the remedial mandate in this matter was not simply to permit retrenchment by payment of compensation; the litigation that continued and the subsequent orders were directed to ensure that persons who qualified as per G.O.Ms.No.212 and who had requisite length of service were considered for absorption/regularization. The Board’s payment of compensation at an earlier stage, without there being any final adjudication extinguishing the right to be considered for regularization cannot be permitted to be used by the Board as a device to frustrate the substantive rights which the petitioners assert on the basis of total service, seniority list and the clear directions of this Court. Petitioners’ reliance on memo dated 10.12.1993 and the observations in Writ Petition No.19401 of 2012 are material and cannot be brushed aside by technical computations or selective treatment. 10. Respondents assert that after December, 1997, no daily wage clerks were appointed except in the categories of SC, ST, PH, compassionate appointments and internal promotions; they also assert that none of the juniors to petitioners were regularized. Petitioners, on the other hand, allege that vacancies of Junior Assistant and Typist posts existed (a fact which respondents had admitted in various affidavits) and that despite such vacancies, the Board did not consider their cases and instead, filled posts by deputation and promotion while leaving petitioners out. The record exhibits a pattern of inconsistent actions and explanations by the Board. Specific instances of differential treatment — notably regularization of Smt. Usha Rani by proceedings dated 04.09.1996 — further make it necessary for this Court to insist upon a fair, non- discriminatory and judgment-consonant application of the criteria laid down in the orders of this Court and in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. 11. From the above discussion, it is to be understood, petitioners were in service as on the cut-off date 25.11.1993 as evidenced by the Board’s own communication dated 10.12.1993 and as observed in Writ Petition No.19401 of 2012. That factual position cannot be negatived by subsequent self-serving computations by the Board which are not supported by contemporaneous records. 11. From the above discussion, it is to be understood, petitioners were in service as on the cut-off date 25.11.1993 as evidenced by the Board’s own communication dated 10.12.1993 and as observed in Writ Petition No.19401 of 2012. That factual position cannot be negatived by subsequent self-serving computations by the Board which are not supported by contemporaneous records. Secondly, the Division Bench’s directions dated 08.08.2014 in Writ Appeal No.1795 of 2013 and 1135 of 2014 require that the entire service from inception be taken into account and that those who qualify under G.O.Ms.No.212 be taken into service forthwith (without back wages), while those not qualifying be re-engaged under Section 25(H) as and when work exists or be given other benefits. The impugned memos dated 19.11.2014 and 17.08.2015 issued by the Board are inconsistent with these directions insofar as they decline to consider petitioners for regularization in the light of the Board’s own earlier positions and the judicial directives. Thirdly, the Board’s contention that retrenchment with compensation having been effected in the early 1990s extinguishes any entitlements must yield to the subsequent judicial directions which expressly contemplated consideration for regularization based upon length of service and seniority. The mere acceptance of compensation in the earlier phase cannot be converted into a bar where later directions require fresh consideration and where the Board itself had repeatedly held out the prospect of regularization. Fourthly, the Board’s assertion that no juniors were regularized is not a sufficient answer to petitioners’ claim of selective action and discrimination, especially as the record contains instances of regularization of certain persons and admissions in prior affidavits and memos that vacancies exist and that regularization would be effected as and when vacancies arose. 12. For these reasons supra, this Court is satisfied that the impugned Memo dated 19.11.2014 and Memo dated 17.08.2015 cannot be allowed to stand. The Board is obliged to implement the directions of this Court and to apply in good faith and in a transparent manner the criteria mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and in the orders of this Court, including the Division Bench order dated 08.08.2014. Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient material warranting issuance of the writs sought for from this Court. 13. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed setting aside the memos dated 19.11.2014 and 17.08.2015. Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient material warranting issuance of the writs sought for from this Court. 13. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed setting aside the memos dated 19.11.2014 and 17.08.2015. Respondents are therefore, directed to regularise / absorb petitioners from their date of their initial appointment as per the order in Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989 and directives (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 the consequential benefits. No costs. 14. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.