ORDER : NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J. W.P. No.9858 of 2024 is filed for the following relief: “…to declare action of respondents in non-regularizing the services of the petitioner as Jr. Engineer (Electrical)/Manager, in spite of petitioner legally appointed as Jr. Engineer (Electrical)/Manager and completed 13 years of service and issued an impugned Proceedings No.13/Per.1/B1/2020, dated: 05.05.2023 as an illegal, unilateral and against the Regulation 22 of the Telangana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation, 1976 and in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and against to the catena of Judgments of an Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court, and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with consequential benefits and pass…” W.P. No.10814 of 2024 is filed for the following relief: “….to declare the action of respondents in non-regularizing the services of the petitioner as Manager (Production & Procurement), in spite of petitioner legally appointed as Manager (Production & Procurement) and completed 16½ years service and the 2nd respondent issued an impugned Proceedings by rejecting the regularization of the service of the petitioner vide Proceedings No.14/Per.1/B1/2020, dated: 30.09.2023 as an illegal and against the Regulations of the Telangana Dairy Development Employees Co-operative Federation, 1976 and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and against the catena of Judgments of an Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Manager (Production & Procurement) in the respondents Organization with consequential benefits and pass….” 2. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is identical, these two Writ Petitions are disposed of by this Common Order. 3. Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Animal Husbandry, appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri Bharath Reddy Bommineni, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd., appearing for the respondent No.2. 4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in WP No.9858 of 2024 are discussed hereunder: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows: That the petitioner applied for the post of Jr. Engineer (electrical) in pursuance of the Notification issued by the 2nd respondent vide Notification No.18/Per.I/B1/10, dated 20.10.2010. 4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in WP No.9858 of 2024 are discussed hereunder: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows: That the petitioner applied for the post of Jr. Engineer (electrical) in pursuance of the Notification issued by the 2nd respondent vide Notification No.18/Per.I/B1/10, dated 20.10.2010. He appeared the written examination on 23.01.2011 and also attended the interview on 04.03.2011. After completing the interview, the 2 nd respondent appointed the petitioner as a Jr. Engineer (Electrical)/Contract Manager on 01.04.2011 on contract basis initially for one year and posted at Nizamabad. 5. Subsequently, the contract is extended from time to time and the petitioner is continuing in the same post for the past 13 years and presently, the petitioner is working as a Jr. Engineer (Electrical)/Contract Manager at Hyderabad. Since then the petitioner had been discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his higher Authorities on par with regular employees. Though the petitioner completed 13 years of service, the respondents are not regularizing his service as a Jr. Engineer (Electrical) in pursuance of the Regulation 22 of the A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation, 1976 and in pursuance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgments and this Hon'ble Court Judgments. 6. Though the petitioner had been discharging his duties on par with regular employees, the respondents are not paying equal pay or minimum basic pay that is being paid to the regular employees. The petitioner is being paid consolidated pay of Rs.30,000/- per month and after deductions, he is only getting Rs.27,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner had approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing W.P.No.8968 of 2019 and the Hon'ble High Court allowed the said Writ Petition on 18.08.2022 as follows: “18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize services of the petitioner in the post of Junior Engineer/Manager from the date of his initial appointment in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize services of the petitioner in the post of Junior Engineer/Manager from the date of his initial appointment in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 7. Aggrieved by the above order, the 2 nd respondent had preferred an Appeal before the Division Bench vide W.A.No.179 of 2023 and the Writ Appeal was heard in a single time without giving opportunity to file the counter, and modified the orders of the learned Single Judge on08.02.2023 as follows: “The present Writ Appeal can be disposed of and the appellants comprising the State of Telangana as well as Telangana State Dairy Development Corporation shall examine the case of the respondent in terms of a policy of the State Government and regularize his services by duly taking into account the recommendations made by the Managing Director/appellant, dated 14.12.2016 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.” Since the respondents have not complied with the above order, the petitioner filed C.C.No.2342 of 2023. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent had issued speaking orders by rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide impugned proceedings No.13 / Per.I / B1 /2020, dated 05.05.2023, and for the same, the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court by closing the Contempt Case on 15.03.2024, gave liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings, which has been issued by the 2nd respondent. 8. This is the 2nd round of litigation. In spite of petitioner having been appointed legally in the sanctioned post and having completed 13 years of service as a Junior Engineer Electrical Post/Contract Manager in the respondents’ Organization in pursuance of the Regulation 22 of the Telangana State Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited, which is headed by the 2nd respondent, the 2 nd respondent is not regularizing the services of the petitioner. 9. 9. The impugned proceedings dated 05.05.2023 of the 2 nd respondent reads as under: “…that the contract staff are not entitled for absorption against the posts of TSDDCF Ltd. However, this case was also examined in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3595- 3612/1999, dated 10.04.2006 in the case of Uma Devi and further clarificatory orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 03.08.2010 in SLP No.15774/2006 in ML Kesari's case and his case was not within the ambit of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court therein. The same was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court in W.A.No.179/2023 as the said Supreme Court Judgments apply only to the persons working as on 10.04.2006. Therefore, the regularization of service of Sri V. Pradeep, Contract Manager the petitioner/respondent in W.A.No.179/2023, neither falls under the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court nor under the policy of the State Govt. issued in G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016 supra and thus not entitled for regularization of his contractual services as contract Manager in TSDDCF Ltd. In view of the above, Sri V.Pradeep, Contract Manager the Petitioner/Respondent in W.A.No.179/2023 is informed that there is no merit for consideration of his request for regularization of his service within the policy of the Government of Telangana and Hon'ble Supreme Court guidelines. He is therefore informed accordingly, while disposing off his representation dt: 23.03.2023 in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court orders dt:08.02.2023 in W.A.No.179/2023...” 10. The above order is an unreasonable and in violation of the Telangana State Dairy Development Co-operation Federation Regulations 1976 and in violation of the Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was appointed in the sanctioned post as Jr. Engineer (Electrical)/Contract manager on 01.04.2011 and joined in the duty 02.04.2011. 11. The petitioner was neither appointed illegally nor irregularly and he was appointed in regular process. The petitioner was appointed as a regular and having qualification for the post under the Regulation of 22 of the Telangana State Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Regulations 1976 and completed 13 years service, for which, he is entitled to regularize his service as Jr. Engineer (Electrical). 12. Along with the petitioner, one Smt. Sudha, who was appointed as Jr. Engineer (Electronics) as regular employee, though she obtained less marks than the petitioner in the written examination. Engineer (Electrical). 12. Along with the petitioner, one Smt. Sudha, who was appointed as Jr. Engineer (Electronics) as regular employee, though she obtained less marks than the petitioner in the written examination. She was appointed as a regular employee, but the petitioner was appointed as Jr. Engineer (Electrical) on contract basis and time to time extended contract period since then to till date. The petitioner is discharging his duties on par with regular employees, but not regularized his services and the same is arbitrary and discriminatory. 13. The petitioner fulfilled the conditions of the service regularization policy of the State Government which has been issued vide G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 16.02.2016, and the same was confirmed by the 2nd respondent by writing a letter to the State Government vide Lr. o.334/Per.I/B1/2015, dated 14.12.2016 that petitioner is having qualification and appointed in the sanctioned post and completed 13 years service on contract basis and he was appointed on regular process in terms of the Regulation 22 of the Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperation Employees Federation, 1976. In several departments regularized the services of the contract employees those who have fulfilled the conditions of the regularization policy, but the respondents are not regularizing the services of the petitioner. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 filed counter and submits as follows: That the Government vide G.O.Ms. No.189, dated 27.04.2007 of Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, accorded permission for filing up of 15 posts of Contractual Managers (Procurement/ Production) with remuneration of Rs.15,000/- per month. Initially for a period of 01 year and extended the same from time to time. 15. Again, the Government during the year 2009 vide G.O.Ms.No.01, dated 07.01.2009 also permitted for filling up of 05 posts of Contractual Managers. The Managers, who were engaged on contract basis from 2007 onwards, continued from time to time with certain terms & conditions, however, with break-up in service. Out of the candidates selected against those contract posts; some of the candidates left the Organization. In order to fill up the left over vacancies caused due to resignations, walk-in interview was conducted on 04.03.2011 for filling up of the same on contract basis. 16. The petitioner knowingly well that the said post is a contractual post, also appeared for the said interview only against contract posts along with other candidates. In order to fill up the left over vacancies caused due to resignations, walk-in interview was conducted on 04.03.2011 for filling up of the same on contract basis. 16. The petitioner knowingly well that the said post is a contractual post, also appeared for the said interview only against contract posts along with other candidates. These contractual services are made on certain conditions for certain period, but not in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Service Regulations of the Federation. The petitioner was issued appointment Lr. No.58/Per.I/B1/2011, dated 07.03.2011 to work as Manager (Mech/Electrical/Electronics) on contract basis for a period of one year to work at APDDCF Ltd., on consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.15,000/- per month with terms & conditions and posted to Nizamabad Milk Shed. The individual was directed to report to the SDE, Head Office on or before 15.03.2011. 17. Pursuant to the above appointment letter, the petitioner reported to duty duly submitting his joining report on 15.03.2011 FN to work as Contract Manager (Electrical) in APDDCF Ltd., Further, the petitioner had executed an Agreement Bond submitting all his testimonials and has undergone the training period from 15.03.2011 to 31.03.2011. The petitioner was posted to Nizamabad Milk Shed vide Proceedings, dated 01.04.2011. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is well aware that his services were engaged on contract basis and liable to be terminated without any notice / assigning any reasons thereon on completion of the tenure of the contract. 18. During tenure of contract appointment in this organization, the petitioner was not having continuous service as a Contract Manager and he continued with break in service till date and his current contract tenure ends by 17.08.2024. In pursuance of the Orders issued by the respondent vide Proc.No.58/Per.1/B1/2011, dated23.08.2023, he was continued on contract basis with similar terms & conditions as stipulated in the orders, dated 07.03.2011 till completion of the tenure of the contract i.e. up to 17.08.2024 only. Thus, the contractual engagement of the petitioner comes to an end at the end of the current contract period by 17.08.2024. 19. The petitioner’s engagement since 2011 is purely on contract basis with due breaks in service and being engaged in exigencies of work. Thus, his continuance as temporary contractual Manager is not only against the sanctioned post, but also illegal as per the Service Regulations of the Federation. 19. The petitioner’s engagement since 2011 is purely on contract basis with due breaks in service and being engaged in exigencies of work. Thus, his continuance as temporary contractual Manager is not only against the sanctioned post, but also illegal as per the Service Regulations of the Federation. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any constitutional/statutory/vested or legal right either to seek regulation/absorption. Therefore, it is not mandatory that, the temporary contractual workers to be absorbed as part of its establishment as regular employees. 20. There is no fundamental right to those who have been engaged temporary or on contractual basis or on adhoc basis to claim that they have right to be absorbed in the Service contrary to the Service Regulations. Further, the remunerations of the existing contract Managers are being enhanced Rs.1,500/- at the time of renewal of their contract every year since November, 2017. Hence the petitioner is being paid Rs.30,000/- 21. The petitioner filed W.P.No.8968 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court, praying to direct the respondents for regularizing his services from the date of his initial appointment, as per the APDDCF employees regulations 1976 as Junior Engineer/Manager. The Hon'ble High Court in its final orders, dated 18.08.2022 directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post of Junior Engineer / manager from the date of his initial appointment, in accordance with law. 22. Aggrieved by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the appellants i.e., the State Government and the Federation, have preferred an Appeal through W.A.No.179 of 2023 before the Hon'ble High Court, to set aside orders, dated 18.08.2022 in WP.No.8968 of 2019 on the grounds that, the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in civil Appeal No.3595-3612/1999, dated 10.04.2006 in the case of Uma Devi and further clarificatory orders, dated 03.08.2010 in SLP No.15774/2006 in ML. Kesari's case are not applicable to Sri V.Pradeep, Contract Manager, the respondent in W.A.No.179/2023 as his engagement as contract manager was not within the ambit of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein besides contrary to service regulations of the TSDDCF Ltd., hence not entitled for regularization of the services. 23. Kesari's case are not applicable to Sri V.Pradeep, Contract Manager, the respondent in W.A.No.179/2023 as his engagement as contract manager was not within the ambit of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein besides contrary to service regulations of the TSDDCF Ltd., hence not entitled for regularization of the services. 23. While considering the submissions of the appellants in WA No.179/2023, the Hon'ble High Court in its final orders, dated 18.02.2023 directed as under: "….The Appellants comprising the State of Telangana as well as Telangana State Dairy Development Corporation shall examine the case of the respondent in terms of a policy of the State Government and regularize his services by duly taking into account the recommendations made by the Managing Director/Appellant, Dt: 14-12-2016 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law…". In view of the above directions of the Hon'ble High Court and the consequential representation of the petitioner, the respondent Federation vide Procs.No.13/Per.I/B1/2020, dated 05.05.2023 issued orders stating that there is no merit for consideration of his request for regularization of his service within the policy of the Government of Telangana and Hon'ble Supreme Court guidelines. 24. As a matter of State Policy, the Government of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.02.2016 of Finance (HRM-I) Department for regularization of the services of person appointed on contract basis, shall be considered against the sanctioned posts in the Government, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. As per section 10 of A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of appointment to public services and rationalization of staff pattern and pay structure) Act 1994, the following conditions are to be fulfilled: 01 Availability of a post in the relevant category in the respective departments shall be the pre-requisite condition for considering regularization. 02 Regularization may be considered only in respect of persons appointed on full time contract basis on a monthly remuneration. 03 Regularization may be considered only in respect of eligible personnel working as on 2nd June, 2014, immediately before formation of Telangana State, and continuing till the date of proposed regularization. 04 For the purpose of continuity the annual breaks in certain vacation departments like Education and Welfare Departments may be ignored. This condition shall not, however, apply in respect of breaks on account of unauthorized absence and disciplinary cases. 05 The regularization shall be with prospective effect i.e., from the date of issue of orders of regularization and appointment to the category. This condition shall not, however, apply in respect of breaks on account of unauthorized absence and disciplinary cases. 05 The regularization shall be with prospective effect i.e., from the date of issue of orders of regularization and appointment to the category. 06 The backlog in reservations if any arising out of regularization as above shall be carried forward and treated as backlog vacancies for that particular category. 25. In pursuance of the above guidelines, the Government in Finance Department, Government of Telangana vide Circular Memo No.308-A/51/A3/HRM- I/2014-1, dated 26.02.2016 requested all the Departments to inform category wise the number of persons appointed on contract basis, against the sanctioned posts in the Government and working as on 2 nd June 2014. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner along with the other similarly engaged individuals were referred to the Government i.e. first respondent, vide Letter No.334/Per.I/B1/2015, dated 14.12.2016. Recently, the Government i.e. the first respondent, was also requested to inform the present status of the proposals, dated 14.12.2016 of this office, vide letter No. 334/Per.1/B1/2015, dated 08.12.2022. Accordingly, the Government vide its Lr. No.2750/Vⅅ/A2/2022, dated 24.02.2023 of AH, DD & F(Vⅅ) Department, informed as follows: 1. As per the Para 04 of G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016 the regularization shall be considered in respect of the Contract personnel, who are working against sanctioned posts in Government only. 2. Therefore, the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016 are not applicable to the personnel working in Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited and requested to take necessary action in the matter accordingly. 3. This Letter is issued with the concurrence of Finance (HRM.I) Department vide their U.No.1851972/08/A2/HRM.I/2023, dated20.02.2023. 26. The policy of Government stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016 that the regularization of the services of person appointed on contract basis shall be considered against the sanctioned posts in the Government subject to fulfillment of certain conditions as per section 10 of AP Public employment (Regulation of appointment to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act 1994. However in pursuance of the instructions issued by the 1st respondent vide Memo, dated 29.02.2016, the details of the contract managers working in TSDDCF Ltd., were forwarded to the 1st respondent vide letter, dated 14.12.2016 to examine the same in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016. 27. However in pursuance of the instructions issued by the 1st respondent vide Memo, dated 29.02.2016, the details of the contract managers working in TSDDCF Ltd., were forwarded to the 1st respondent vide letter, dated 14.12.2016 to examine the same in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016. 27. The 1 st respondent informed this office that, as per Para 4 of G.O.Ms.No.16, regularization shall be considered in respect of the contract personnel who are working against the sanctioned post in Government only, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016. Therefore informed that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016 supra are not applicable to the personnel working in TSDDCF Ltd., and requested to take necessary action vide Memo No. 2750/Vⅅ/A2/2020, dated 24.02.2023 of AH DD & F Department. 28. This case was also examined in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3995-3612/1999, dated 10.04.2006 in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and the petitioner’s case was not within the ambit of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court therein. The same was brought to the notice of Hon'ble High Court in W.A.No.179 of 2023 as the said Supreme Court’s Judgment applies only to the persons working as on 10.04.2006. Therefore, the regularization of service of the petitioner/respondent in W.A.No.179 of 2023, neither falls under the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court nor under the policy of the State Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016 (supra) and thus, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization of his contractual services as contract Manager in TSDDCF Ltd. 29. During the year 2011, the respondents issued a Notification No.18/Per.I/B1/2010, dated 20.10.2010 for 4 posts of Junior Engineers in pursuance of the Service Regulations of APDDCF Ltd., for recruitment of candidates under Direct Recruitment calling for the applications from the qualified candidates to undergo the process of open competitive selection. The written exam for the said recruitment was conducted on 23.01.2011 and 199 candidates who applied for the said posts, attended for the said examination. Out of them only 12 candidates, who were qualified in the written examination, were called for the interview in the ratio of 1:3 on 24.01.2011. 30. The petitioner, who attended for the written examination, was not qualified for the interview. Therefore, he was not called for the interview held on 24.01.2011. Out of them only 12 candidates, who were qualified in the written examination, were called for the interview in the ratio of 1:3 on 24.01.2011. 30. The petitioner, who attended for the written examination, was not qualified for the interview. Therefore, he was not called for the interview held on 24.01.2011. In the order of merit of the written examination as well as the interview, those 04 notified posts were filled up by the candidates in the order of merit. The process of the aforesaid selection was completed and the selected candidates reported for duty. Therefore, the Petitioner having not qualified for the interview has no right to claim over the post for regular appointment with reference to the Notification dated 20.10.2010. Thus, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the regular selection process at this juncture. 31. The respondents never reopened the said selection process. While the matter stood thus, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.189, 27.04.2007 of Animal Husbandry Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, accorded permission for filing up of 15 posts of Contractual Managers (Procurement / Production) with remuneration of Rs.15,000/- per month initially for a period of 01 year and extended the same from time to time. Again the Government during the year 2009 vide G.O.Ms. No.01, dated 07.01.2009 also permitted for filling up of 05 posts of Contractual Managers. The Managers who are engaged on contract basis from 2007 onwards continued from time to time with certain terms & conditions, however with break in service. 32. Out of the candidates selected against those contract posts, some of the candidates left the organization. In order to fill up the left over vacancies caused due to resignations, walk-in interview was conducted on 04.03.2011 for filling up of the same on contract basis. The Petitioner knowingly well that the said post is a contractual post, also appeared for the said interview only against contract posts along with other candidates. It is well known that the long service in the contract service by itself shall not be a ground for regularization. Regularization is well known that it is not a mode / method of appointment prescribed under the Service Regulations. These contractual services are made on certain conditions for certain period but not in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Service Regulations of the Federation. 33. Regularization is well known that it is not a mode / method of appointment prescribed under the Service Regulations. These contractual services are made on certain conditions for certain period but not in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Service Regulations of the Federation. 33. In M.L.Kesari's case, orders dated 03.08.2010, it was clarified that each department or each instrumentality should undertake one time exercise and prepare a list who are working for more than 10 years as on 10.04.2006 i.e., the date of judgment of Uma Devi's case without the intervention of courts and subject them to process of verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualifications for the posts and if so, regularize their services. It was further clarified that, and it is a fact that, employer has not undertaken such exercise of the regularization in Uma Devi's case or that such exercise was undertaken with regard to a limit view, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of above directions in Uma Devi case as one time measure. Therefore it is clear that the contract employees/temporary employees etc., who are working as on 10.04.2006 against sanctioned posts are only entitled for regularization. 34. The petitioner during his tenure of contract appointment in this Organization is not having continuous service, as a Contract Manager and he continued with break in service during the period from 14.09.2019 to till date of filing of the counter and his current contract tenure ends by 17.08.2024. In pursuance of the Orders issued by the Respondents vide Proc. No.58/Per.I/B1/2011, dt.23-08-2023, he was continued on contract basis, with similar terms & conditions as stipulated in the orders dated 07.03.2011 supra till completion of the tenure of the contract i.e. up to 17.08.2024 only. Hence, the contractual engagement of Petitioner comes to an end at the end of the current contract period by 17-08-2024. Therefore, his engagement since 2011 year is purely on contract basis, with due breaks in service and being engaged in exigencies of work. Thus, his continuance in the Federation as temporary contractual Manager, and is not against the sanctioned posts, and therefore he does not have any constitutional/statutory/vested or legal right either to seek regularization. 35. The petitioner was not on contractual service as on 10.04.2006. Thus, his continuance in the Federation as temporary contractual Manager, and is not against the sanctioned posts, and therefore he does not have any constitutional/statutory/vested or legal right either to seek regularization. 35. The petitioner was not on contractual service as on 10.04.2006. But he was engaged on contract basis only on 07.03.2011 with certain terms & conditions and continued with break in service. Since the W.P. filed by him was under adjudication of Hon'ble Court, he was continued subject to the same terms & conditions. Hence the petitioner’s case is not covered under the principles laid down in the Uma Devi's case. 36. The Federation has issued Notification No.18/Per/B1/10, dated 20.10.2010 for recruitment for certain posts wherein the posts of Junior Engineer (Mechanical/Electrical/Electronics) were notified (OC (W),SC(W),OC,BC-A(W)). The written examination for the said recruitment was conducted on 23.01.2011. The candidates who have qualified in the written examination were called for interview as per 1:3 ratio on 24.01.2011. The list of selected candidates was prepared for the post of JE (Electrical/ Electronics /Mechanical). 37. Sri Jameel Sheikh was selected against the OC general category; the petitioner has therefore, no scope of appointment even Sri Jameel Sheikh has left the organization, as the petitioner did not clear the interview, and hence he was not panelled in the waiting list. The next eligible candidate in the waiting list (for OC category) who has cleared the written examination and oral interview in the order of merit was Srinivas Katta (BC-B). Whereas, SL.No. 3 from the list of above selected candidates A. Bhagya Prasannamba, selected for appointment as Junior Engineer (electronics), has not reported for duty within the stipulated date i.e., as on 01.02.2011 and the appointment orders issued to her, were withdrawn. Since the said post was reserved for BC-A (W) the waiting list of selected candidates in the order of merit was screened, and accordingly appointed N.Sudha, for the post of Junior Engineer, (electronics) against BC-A (W) vacancy. Thus, the mode of appointment of the petitioner and Smt N. Sudha are different and the petitioner claiming himself to be next meritorious candidate is baseless and afterthought and hence denied. 38. At the time of appointment, the petitioner had an agreement with the respondent Federation that they shall abide by the terms and conditions which include appointment purely on Contract basis and does not fall under the category of Regular employees. 38. At the time of appointment, the petitioner had an agreement with the respondent Federation that they shall abide by the terms and conditions which include appointment purely on Contract basis and does not fall under the category of Regular employees. The respondent Federation is abide by the said terms & conditions and is regularly enhancing their pay as and when they are requesting for enhancement. Now at this point of time, in spite of clear agreement on the terms and conditions the petitioner is requesting for regularization of service which cannot be considered. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions. 39. Initially, at the time of admission, after hearing the matter both sides, in W.P.No.9858 of 2024, on 18.04.2024, the following order is passed: “Pending further orders of this Court, the respondent are directed to continue the services of the petitioner.” In W.P.No.10814 of 2024 also, similar interim order was granted on 25.04.2024. 40. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking regularization of the services of the petitioner with consequential benefits. This is his 4th round of litigation. Initially, W.P.No.8968 of 2019 filed and the same was allowed on 18.08.2022 as follows: “…the respondents are directed to regularize services of the petitioner in the post of Junior Engineer / Manager from the date of his initial appointment, in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order….” 41. Aggrieved by the same, authorities filed Writ Appeal No.179 of 2023 and the same was disposed of on 08.02.2023 as follows: “Writ Appeal can be disposed of and the appellants comprising the State of Telangana as well as Telangana State Dairy Development Corporation, shall examine the case of the respondent in terms of a policy of the State Government and regularize his services by duly taking into account the recommendation made by the Managing Director / Appellant, dated 14.12.2016 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.” 42. After passing of the above order, the respondent authorities did not pass any orders. Against the same, Writ Petitioner filed contempt case No.2342 of 2023. When the contempt case was taken up for hearing, the respondent authorities informed the Court that in compliance of the judgment dated 08.02.2023 rendered by this court, the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected vide proceedings dated 05.05.2023. Against the same, Writ Petitioner filed contempt case No.2342 of 2023. When the contempt case was taken up for hearing, the respondent authorities informed the Court that in compliance of the judgment dated 08.02.2023 rendered by this court, the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected vide proceedings dated 05.05.2023. With the above submissions of the respondent authorities, the contempt case was closed on 15.03.2024 as follows: “Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings, dated 5.5.2023 in accordance with law, if he is so aggrieved.” 43. In the said rejection order, dated 05.05.2023 observed as follows: “In the circumstances stated above Sri V. Pradeep, Contract Manager in W.A.No.179 of 2023, the petitioner/respondent is hereby informed that it is clear that the policy of the Government stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.16, Fin.(HRM-I) Dept., dated 26.02.2016 is that the regularization of the services of person appointed on contract basis shall be considered against the sanctioned posts in the Government subject to fulfillment of certain conditions as per Sec. 10 of A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of appointment to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 as detailed at para ante. However, in pursuance of the instructions issued by the 1 st respondent vide Memo, dated 29.02.2016, the details of the contract Managers working in TSDDCF Ltd., were forwarded to the 1st respondent vide letter, dated 14.12.2016, to examine the same in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.16 Fin.(HRM-I) Dept., dated 26.02.2016 supra, the 1 st respondent was also reminded vide letter dated 08.12.2022. In pursuance of the request of the 2nd respondent vide letter, dated 14.12.2016, and 08.12.2022; the 1st respondent informed this office that regularization shall be considered in respect of the contract personnel who are working against the sanctioned posts in Government only, as per para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.16, Fin.(HRM-I) Dept., 26.02.2016, therefore, informed that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.16, Fin.(HRM-I) Dept., 26.02.2016 are not applicable to the personnel working in TSDDCF Ltd., and requested to take necessary action accordingly vide Memo No.2750/V& DD/A2/2020, dated 24.02.2023 of AH DD &F Dept.,” 44. A bare reading of the G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.02.2016 nowhere it is stated that regularization shall be considered in respect of the contract personnel who are working against the sanctioned posts in Government only as contended by the respondent authorities. A bare reading of the G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.02.2016 nowhere it is stated that regularization shall be considered in respect of the contract personnel who are working against the sanctioned posts in Government only as contended by the respondent authorities. It clearly mentioned as follows: 4(b) Regularization of services persons appointed on contract basis. 10-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government may regularize the services of the persons appointed on contract basis against the sanctioned posts in the Government, subject to fulfillment of the following conditions: 01 Availability of a post in the relevant category in the respective departments shall be the pre-requisite condition for considering regularization. 02 Regularization may be considered only in respect of persons appointed on full time contract basis on a monthly remuneration. 03 Regularization may be considered only in respect of eligible personnel working as on 2nd June, 2014, immediately before formation of Telangana State, and continuing till the date of proposed regularization. 04 For the purpose of continuity the annual breaks in certain vacation departments like Education and Welfare Departments may be ignored. This condition shall not, however, apply in respect of breaks on account of unauthorized absence and disciplinary cases. 45. The petitioners, in the case at hand, have fulfilled all the above said conditions. In the counter also, the authorities stated that the petitioner’s’ post is a contractual post, also appeared for the said interview only against contract posts along with other candidates. The statement of the authorities is contradicting their own letter, dated 14.12.2016 that while furnishing the information regarding the number of persons working on contract basis against the sanctioned posts. In the said letter, petitioners’ names placed at Sl.No.1 and 5 respectively. If based on the counter, if the petitioners are working on contract basis against contract vacancies, they should not have mentioned the persons are working against the sanctioned posts. In the above said fact it is clear with their own letter, dated 14.12.2016 that the petitioners are working on contract basis against the sanctioned posts. 46. The petitioners’ counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi (3 and others) , [ 2006(4) SCC 1 ] . 46. The petitioners’ counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi (3 and others) , [ 2006(4) SCC 1 ] . In the said judgment, the Apex Court in para No.53 observed with regard to the regularization against the sanctioned posts as follows: “…duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for 10 years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed who have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under the orders of the courts or of Tribunals, and should further ensure that regular circumstances are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that required to be filled up…” The observation of the Apex Court is that whoever working on contract basis or temporary basis against the sanctioned posts for more than 10 years, their services have to be regularized. In the present case also petitioners are working on contract basis for more than 10 years. 47. As per their counter as per Sec.10 of A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of employment to public services and rationalization of staff pattern and pay structure) Act, 1994 regularization may be considered only in respect of personnel working as on 2 nd June of 2014, immediately before formation of Telangana State and continuing till the date of proposed regularization. In the said aspect also, the petitioners are working prior to 2014. 48. Though the petitioners are working under contract basis against the sanctioned posts for more than 10 years, as per counter the authorities have rejected the case of the petitioners that the regularization will be done in the Government, but whereas in the G.O., there is no specification “only Government”. Moreover, on the ground of this, rejection of regularization is against the principles of natural justice. It is nothing but exploitation of contract employees. Moreover, on the ground of this, rejection of regularization is against the principles of natural justice. It is nothing but exploitation of contract employees. As per Uma devi case (supra), petitioners’ case can be considered for regularization. 49. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Resmi R S Vs. Government of India , [2019 SCC 2649] held that: Para No.9. That, contractual employees under a scheme can have no right to claim that they are entitled to continue in service after the agreed term of contract is over. Para No.10. That, who had been engaged on contract basis have no right to insist that they are to be permitted to continue after the term of contract has expired." The petitioner, therefore, was not on contractual service as on 10.04.2006. 50. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are working on contract basis against the sanctioned posts in the respondent Corporation. As such, the above referred judgment is not applicable to the case on hand. 51. In view of the above observations, this court is of the considered view that petitioners are working as contract employees against the sanctioned posts for more than 10 years. In the said circumstances, their services can be regularized. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and regularize their services with prospective effect i.e., from the date of issue of orders of regularization and appointment to the category. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 52. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.