Ankam Padmaja v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. RAVI KUMAR PONAKAMPALLI

2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed praying the Court to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No.ESE53OPCS0CNTE/ 1/2024 B4 dated 06.05.2025 wherein requested the 1st respondent to issue 2 necessary orders for renewal of the contractual services of 138 Contract Faculty only out of 156 who worked during the year 2024-25 for a period of 11 Months w. e.f 01.06.2025 to 30.04.2026 the academic year 2025-26 and consequential G.O Rt.No.233 School Education PROG-Ill Department dated

09.06.2025 of the 1st respondent and in not renewing the contractual Services of the petitioners on par with others is illegal arbitrary unjust discriminatory without notice violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to renew the Contract of the petitioners as Contract Faculty of Trained Graduate Teachers on par with others w.e.f 01.06.2025 and pass such other orders.

2. Initially the petitioners were appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) in the Residential Schools which are functioning under the control of Erstwhile A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society (APREIS) which was established by the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, their services have been extended from time to time. In the meantime, the petitioners along with others have filed an application for regularization of their services and the petitioners herein have also filed W.P.Nos.6695 of 2021 and 14904 of 2021 before this High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize the services with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointments. 3

3. While pending the writ petitions, the State Government has issued proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.293 dated 16.07.2024 for renewal of the contractual services of 159 contract faculty working in A.P Residential Educational Institutions Society, for a period of 11 months with effect from 01.06.2024 to

30.04.2025, with a break of one month, in principle as >no work-no pay?, for the Academic Year 2024-2025, for smooth running of academic class work and administrative works in the APRE Institutions.

4. Surprisingly based on the report submitted by the Director of School Education-2nd respondent dated 06.05.2025, the 1st respondent has accorded permission for continuation of services of 138 T.G.Ts for 2025-26 and terminating the 18 T.G.Ts. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, this court has passed interim order on 19.08.2025 as follows: <In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the non-renewal of contractual services of the Petitioners even though they have been working on a contract basis from 2005 onwards. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that out of 156 contract faculty working in Respondent No. 3's institution, the contract of 138 individuals was renewed, and the Petitioners' contract was not renewed without assigning any reason. Learned counsel further submits that though the Petitioners are working on a contract basis from 2005 onwards, the contract ought to have been renewed, 4 more so in the absence of any disciplinary enquiry or adverse remarks against the Petitioners. Sri P. Ravi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3,would contend that the services of 18 contract lecturers were not renewed as there were certain adverse remarks against them. He passed on the reports as against the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3. As per the Confidential Reports of these petitioners, their performance was noted to be satisfactory in Clause No.7. He further submits that there are certain adverse remarks of the principal of the school against the Petitioners. Having heard the respective counsel, the non renewal of contract of the Petitioners was on account of certain adverse remarks against the Petitioners, for which the Petitioners were not put on notice. The non-renewal being on account of adverse remarks against the Petitioners and that being stigmatic would require the Petitioners to be put on notice and an enquiry to be conducted as regards the so- called adverse reports as held by the Hon?ble Apex Court in Swati Priyadarshini v. the State of Mandhya Pradesh and others ( Civil Appeal No.9758 of 2024). Apart from that, the confidential reports as mentioned above do not show any serious adverse remarks against the Petitioners and their teaching ability was noted to be satisfactory. Therefore, there shall be an interim direction to the Respondents to continue the services of the Petitioners at par with other contract lecturers till 30.04.2026. Post on 24.09.2026.=

6. Reply to the contention, the respondents have filed their counter and vacate stay petition. For non compliance of the above orders, the 5 petitioners have pressed by filing the contempt proceedings in C.C.No.3411 of

7. Reply to the above, the respondents have filed their counter and vacate stay petition. Though the respondents have made several allegations in the counter against the petitioners and certain other teachers and their main contention is that based on the reports of the concerned Principal, the Director of School Education has recommended for continuation of only 138 T.G.Ts and as far as the petitioners are concerned there are severe allegations made by the Principal of the concerned institution and based on the letter/complaint by the Principal, the respondents have conducted an enquiry and based on the enquiry report. The Director has submitted report and accordingly, the Government was not inclined to extend the services of the petitioners.

8. Reply to the said allegations, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the respondents have stated the enquiry has been conducted as against the allegations made by the Principal, no notice and no opportunity has been given to the petitioners. However, if at all any allegations are made, the authorities have to conduct or the enquiry committee while conducting the enquiry has to issue notice and the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners but without following the said procedure, the respondents ought not to have discontinued the services of the petitioners. Infact, on perusal of the letter addressed by the Director-2nd respondent dated 06.05.2025, it shows that there 6 are certain remarks which are stigmatic in nature. It is stated that in the interest of students/residential institutions, the contract of 18 TGTs not considered for renewal. The said remarks are derogative in nature and it effects the performance of the petitioners.

9. In Vijayakumaran C.P.V. Vs. Central University of Kerala and others1 the Hon?ble Apex Court has categorically held that even the private or contractual employees, discontinue or termination of services has categorically held that the opportunity has to be provided, if the termination or discontinuation is stigmatic. In the instant case also as observed by the Commissioner for non continuation of the petitioners and other teachers for the best interest of the institutions shows that the said observations are derogative in nature and discontinuation is stigmatic. In para 8 of Vijayakumaran (supra), it was observed as under: <8. It is well-established position that the material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the order of termination of the probationer, but might be contained "any document referred termination order=. ……………….The Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Ors2 in para 35 observed as follows <……………………….35. The above decision is, in our view, a clear authority for the proposition that the material which amounts to stigma need not 1 Manu/SC/0094/2020 2 (1999) 3 SCC 60, 7 be contained in the order of termination of the probationer but might be contained in any document referred to in the termination order or in its annexures. Obliviously, such a document could be asked for or called for by any future employer of the probationer. In such a case, the order of termination would stand vitiated on the ground that no regular enquiry was conducted. We shall presently consider whether, on the facts of the case before us, the documents referred to in the impugned order contain any stigma.=

10. Hence, the petitioners services have to be continued till conducting proper enquiry and providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The respondents ought not to have discontinued the services of the petitioners.

11. Considering the submissions made by both the counsels though the respondents have placed reliance about the allegations made against the petitioners by the Principal and also in the best interest of the students, the respondents did not prove with regard to following the principles of natural justice before discontinuing the services of the petitioners and the fact remains that the petitioners were appointed in the year 2025-26 and the respondents ought not to have discontinued the services of the petitioners without following the due procedure atleast by giving an opportunity of hearing.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to continue the petitioners and if the respondents are not inclined to continue the services, the same may be done after following the prescribed procedure by providing the proper opportunity of personal hearing. No order as to costs. 8 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Date:11.02.2026 Gk. _____________ D. RAMESH,J 9 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.20927 OF 2025 Date:11.02.2026 Gk