ORDER : D.RAMESH, J. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, a) to declare the impugned proceedings Rc.No.Voc-I- 3/780/2002, dated 19.06.2002 on the file of the 2 nd respondent whereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization of services in the post of Junior Lecturer as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, contrary to the orders passed in W.P.No.36953/2018, dated 06.11.2024 and apart from violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of Petitioner. b) to direct the respondents to count the temporary service of the petitioner for the purpose of sanction of pensioner benefits….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. In fact, this is a second round of litigation. Initially, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she had not completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993, as per G.O.Ms.No.352, Education (IE.1) Department, dated 01.10.1994. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1717 of 2017. The said O.A. was dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was numbered as W.P.No.36953 of 2018. The said writ petition was considered elaborately and taking into account the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the writ petition was disposed of with the following observations: “13. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi ’s case and subsequent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in M.L. Kesari’s case, the petitioner is entitled to claim regularization. 14. It is further contended that the petitioner is discharging her duties on par with the regular junior lecturers in the 4 th respondent colleges, and further contended she is fully qualified and eligible for regularization. In view of the Judgments stated supra that the respondents ought not to have pressed into the service G.O.Ms.No.352. 14. It is further contended that the petitioner is discharging her duties on par with the regular junior lecturers in the 4 th respondent colleges, and further contended she is fully qualified and eligible for regularization. In view of the Judgments stated supra that the respondents ought not to have pressed into the service G.O.Ms.No.352. It is needless to say that the petitioner has put in more than 33 years of service from the date of her joining as part-time junior lecturer considering the said fact, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents may consider the case of the petitioner on sympathetic grounds by treating the Writ Petition as a representation and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. It is made clear that this Court did not go into the merits of the case on hand and in view of the fact that the petitioner has put in 33 years of service continuously as a part-time junior lecturer and she is fully qualified. 16. In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been continuously working as a part- time junior lecturer for the past 33 years, and she is also qualified and eligible to hold the said post. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of this copy of this order.” 4. Surprisingly, the respondents have once again rejected the case of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 08.01.2025. On perusal of the impugned order, it makes it clear that though the respondents have extracted the orders passed by the High Court, surprisingly, once again the case of the petitioner has been considered on the basis of the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.352, dated 01.10.1994, and rejected the same. On perusal of the impugned order, it makes it clear that though the respondents have extracted the orders passed by the High Court, surprisingly, once again the case of the petitioner has been considered on the basis of the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.352, dated 01.10.1994, and rejected the same. When this Court had categorically observed that the case of the petitioner ought not to have been considered under G.O.Ms.No.352 and had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 , while also taking into account her 33 years of service as a part-time Junior Lecturer, the respondents ought not to have relied upon the conditions stipulated in the said G.O. However, these aspects neither considered in the impugned order nor in the counter. A perusal of the impugned order further shows that though it is totally contrary to the observations made by this Court in the above referred judgment, this Court is restrained to invoke the contempt proceedings against the respondents for clear violation of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the above referred judgment. 5. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the 2 nd respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded to the authorities for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner without reference to G.O.Ms.No.352, dated 01.10.1994, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.