JUDGMENT : SUJOY PAUL, ACJ. 1. Sri K. Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Ms. M. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, for the respondents. 2. With the consent, finally heard. 3. This intra-court appeal takes exception to the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6552 of 2023 whereby, the writ petition was dismissed. 4. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the appellant’s name was forwarded by the employment exchange and he was appointed in the Department on 05.09.1986. Thereafter, the appellant worked continuously with the Department. W.P.No.6552 of 2023 was filed by the appellant seeking his regularization/absorption. The said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge by holding that the governing G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 clearly mentions that absorption shall be against a clear vacancy available at the time of appointment. Learned Single Judge opined that in the instant case, the appellant was not ‘appointed against a sanctioned/vacant post’ and he was appointed on temporary basis. The appellant has attained the age of 58 years as on the date of filing of the writ petition. Apart from that, since the appellant is enjoying the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 14.10.2019, he is not entitled for any relief. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no doubt the governing order is G.O.Ms.No.212 and it prescribes six conditions which need to be fulfilled by an employee who has worked for a minimum period of five years and continuing as on 25.11.1993, the singular point on which the appellant was non-suited is condition No.5 which deals with the availability of clear vacancy on the date of regularization/absorption and not on the date of his initial appointment. Learned Single Judge has erroneously interpreted condition No.5 of said G.O.Ms.No.212 and rejected the writ petition. Merely because the appellant approached the Court after several years, in a case of regularization, it is not an impediment for him. More he worked, more his right of consideration is ripened. The singular reason for rejection of the writ petition is bad in law. The grant of benefit under G.O.Ms.No.51 was also not an impediment for the purpose of considering the appellant for regularization/absorption. He placed reliance on Annexue-P8 to submit that there existed a vacancy which is evident by a certificate issued by Mandal Panchayat Officer on 29.10.2019. The singular reason for rejection of the writ petition is bad in law. The grant of benefit under G.O.Ms.No.51 was also not an impediment for the purpose of considering the appellant for regularization/absorption. He placed reliance on Annexue-P8 to submit that there existed a vacancy which is evident by a certificate issued by Mandal Panchayat Officer on 29.10.2019. This document has escaped notice of learned Single Judge which shows that on the date of absorption there existed a vacancy. 6. Sounding a contra note, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, supported the impugned order and fairly submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.212 is the governing G.O. which prescribes the conditions upon fulfillment of which an employee can get the right of consideration for regularization/absorption. It is strenuously contended that on the date the appellant was appointed, he was not appointed against any clear and vacant post. Thus, learned Single Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the writ petition, more so, when the appellant is admittedly getting the benefit of enhancement of remuneration as per G.O.Ms.No.51 and approached the Court at the fag end of his career. 7. Learned counsel for the parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. 8. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Before dealing with rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to note that learned Government Pleader for Services-II has not disputed the fact that the appellant was appointed in the year 1986 and his name was sponsored by the employment exchange. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.212 on which both the parties placed heavy reliance reads thus: “…Government accordingly decided that the services of such person who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years and are continuing on 25.11.1993 be regularized by the appointing authorities subject to fulfillment of the following conditions: 1. The persons appointed should possess the qualification prescribed as per rules in force as on the date from which his/her services have to be regularized. 2. They should be within the age limits as on the date of appointment as NM/Daily wage employee. 3. The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and back-log will be set-off against future vacancies. 4. Sponsoring of candidates from Employment Exchange is relaxed. 5. 2. They should be within the age limits as on the date of appointment as NM/Daily wage employee. 3. The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and back-log will be set-off against future vacancies. 4. Sponsoring of candidates from Employment Exchange is relaxed. 5. Absorption shall be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per work load excluding the vacancies already notified to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission/District Selection Committee. 6. In the case of Work charged Established, where there will be no clear vacancies, because of the fact that the expenditure on Work-charged is as fixed percentage of P.S. Charges and as soon as the work is over, the services of workcharged establishment will have to be terminated, they shall be adjusted in the other departments. District Offices provided there are clear vacancies of Last Grade Service. (Emphasis Supplied) It is also not in dispute that as on 25.11.1993, the appellant had already worked for more than five years. The only condition on which the appellant’s case was tested and rejected was condition No.5 above. A careful reading of condition No.5 shows that at the time of absorption, there must exist a clear vacancy. In other words, condition No.5 does not stipulate that at the time of initial appointment, there should be a clear and vacant post. Thus, learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has not correctly interpreted the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.212 and considered it as if it prescribes that a vacant post should be there at the time of appointment against which employee had been appointed. The appellant has worked with the Department from the year 1986. If the appellant’s services were not actually required, there was no occasion for the Department to continue him for decades together. The appellant completed more than 34 years of service with the Department. 10. The Supreme Court, after considering its Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , 2006 (4) SCC 1 and Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 opined as under: 7. The appellant completed more than 34 years of service with the Department. 10. The Supreme Court, after considering its Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , 2006 (4) SCC 1 and Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 opined as under: 7. … The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753 is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what - State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753 and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826 sought to avoid. (Emphasis Supplied) 11. Further, while considering the judgment of Umadevi (supra) in Jaggo v. Union of India , AIR 2025 SC 296 , the Supreme Court opined as under: “20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India 5 , it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. 21… Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment : continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 22 to 25… 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. (Emphasis Supplied) 12. In view of ratio of above judgments of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the appellant cannot be denied benefit of absorption/regularization on the basis of ‘surface label’ of ‘temporary/casual employee’. The Supreme Court deprecated this practice in the case of Jaggo (supra). The appellant has rendered 34 years of service and he is not a backdoor entrant. Even after the judgment of Umadevi (supra), the respondents continued and extracted work from the appellant. If the appellant is denied regularization after rendering 34 years of service, it will be miscarriage of justice. 13. In the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra), the Supreme Court opined that such continuance of employees for decades under the garb of ‘irregular appointment’ amounts to ‘exploitation’. Thus, we are inclined to grant the relief to the appellant. 14. If the appellant is denied regularization after rendering 34 years of service, it will be miscarriage of justice. 13. In the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra), the Supreme Court opined that such continuance of employees for decades under the garb of ‘irregular appointment’ amounts to ‘exploitation’. Thus, we are inclined to grant the relief to the appellant. 14. Apart from this, learned Single Judge has not considered the document (Annexurer-P8) which is a certificate and in column 12 of which it is mentioned that a post is vacant and sanctioned. In the counter, the respondents have not dealt with this certificate issued by the Mandal Panchayat Officer. The petitioner was not a back door entrant. His name was sponsored by employment exchange. 15. We have also perused G.O.Ms.No.51 which deals with enhancement of remuneration. This G.O.Ms. cannot be an impediment for consideration of an employee for regularization/absorption if he satisfies the conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.212. 16. In the instant case, the appellant had completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993. It is not the case of the Department that the appellant does not possess the requisite educational qualification. The appellant was not within the age limit at the time of his appointment is also not the case of the Department. The Department has not raised objection about violation of Rule of reservation. The appellant’s name was admittedly sponsored by the employment exchange. However, condition No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.212 relaxes such requirement. Condition No.5 is satisfied by the appellant by filing a document (Annexure-P8) which talks about availability of the vacancy. Thus, examining the case of the appellant on the anvil of governing G.O.Ms.No.212, in our opinion, the appellant has fulfilled essential requirements of the said G.O. for the purpose of absorption. 17. Accordingly, the order of learned Single Judge dated 19.02.2025 is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed . The respondents are directed to consider and regularize the services of the appellant within 60 days and pass an appropriate order in this regard. 18. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed . No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.