High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the Respondents herein to absorb the petitioner into grant-in-aid vacancy from the existing unaided post as per the proposals sent by the 4th respondent on 17.03.2003 and also in light of this Honble court orders passed in wp No. 7Ts7 of 2006 dated zs.oz.2o14 by declaring the proceedings in D.o.Lr No. 120g0/cosE t A2t2oo4-4 dated 20-10.2004 as being inapplicabte and inoperative in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, with all consequential and other attendant benefits as regard seniority arrears of pay and such other benefits. lA NO: I OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders on the proposals sent by the 4th respondent pending disposal of the main writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : MTs.R.SWARNALATHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: ORDER ! * g tt:1lri.,i l{}d 1 wp_6151_20L9 NBK, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITI No.6l51 of 2019 ORDER: The case of the petitioner, as per the writ affidavit, is that she joined the 4th respondent-Educational Society as a Sweeper on 24.06.1,996. Subsequently, on 17.03.2003, the 4th respondent sent proposals to the Government for the absorption of the petitioner into an aided vacancy. The Govemment, on 20.10.2004, imposed a general ban on recruitment and regularization in aided institutions. l.l The petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 7757 of 2006 seeking a direction to the authorities to absorb her into the aidede vacancy, as per the proposals sent by the 4th respondent on 17.03.2003. This Court, by order dated 25.02.2014, considered the case of the petitioner and observed that the proposals for absorbing her in aided vacancy were sent on 17.03.2003, which is much prior to imposition of ban on 20.10.2004, and directed the respondent authorities to consider her candidature and pass appropriate orders as per law.

1.2 It is the further case of the petitioner that after the formation of the State of Telangana in 2014, she made a representation on 22.08.2014 to the Deputy Secretary of the Education Department, who, vide Memo dated L5.09.201,4, sought a report from the Director of School Education, Hyderabad. As there was no response, she caused a legal notice to be issued on 16.05.2016; however, there was no response despite the legal notice.

2. Heard Mrs. R. Swarnalatha, leamed counsel representing Mr. B. Ramesh, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, and the learned Assistarft Government Pleader for Services-Il. Perused the record. t I t 2 wp_6151_2019 NBK, J \ Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions in line with the

3. writ affidavit. She essentially contends that the petitioner has been serving \ as a Sweeper in the 4th respondent institution since 1996 and that the 4th respondent forwarded the proposal for her absorption into the aided vacancy in 2003. Even in W.P. No. 7757 of 2006, this Court directed that the petitioner be considered for absorption and that appropriate orders be passed, specifically observing that the ban was imposed subsequently in 2004. Hence, the inaction of the respondent authorities in considering the candidature of the petitioner for absorption into an aided vacancy is illegal and arbitrary.

4. The leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader, based on the counter affidavit, contends that as per the Rules, if any aided vacancy arises, the management must obtain prior permission for filling up the post and only then fill such vacancies by giving an opportunity to all unemployed persons and by following due procedure as per Rule 12 of G.O. Ms. No. l, Edn., dated 01.01.1994. He further contends that there is no policy to absorb private employees into aided posts; as such, the petitioner's employment has no nexus with the Government. Moreover, there is no sanctioned aided post of Sweeper in the 4th respondent school, and.hence the writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the petitioner was appointed in the 4th respondent- college as a Sweeper in 1996. The 4th respondent, being an aided institution, sent proposals in 2003 for her absorption under an aided vacancy. The ban was imposed subsequently in 2004, without any communication on the petitioner's absorption proposals during the interregnum period between f 3 wp_6151_2019 NBK, J March 2003 and October 2004. This Court considered the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 7757 of 2006 and, by order dated 25.02.2014, directed respondent Nos. I to 3 to consider the petitioner's candidature and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

6. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been serving in the 4th respondent-college for the past three decades in a temporary capacity; and the 4th respondent sent proposals to the Govemment in 2003 for her absorption/regularization,however, there is no response from the respondent authorities. The petitioner also made representations to the Government on

22.08.2014, and the Deputy Secretary to the Education Department sought a report from the Director of School Education, Hyderabad, on 15.09.2014. Fver since, there has been no response in spite of a legal notice sent by the petitioner on 16.05.2016. It is to be noted that this Court in W.P.No.7757 of 2006, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the authorities to consider her absorption and pass appropriate orders as per law.

7. When the petitioner has been serving in a temporary capacity since 1996 in the 4th respondent-college, which is an aided institution, and the 4th respondent forwarded proposals for her absorption in aided vacancy in 2003 by considering her long service, it cannot be said that when an aided vacancy arises then opportunity has to be given to all the unemployed, when it is the specific proposal of the 4th respondent to absorb the petitioner by considering her 7 to 8 years of service by the time of sending the proposals. Further, the petitioner too has made representations in 201,4 after formation of State of Telangana, and also sent a legal notice on20l6, and the respondents in spite of the4rrders of this Court in W.P.No.7757 of 2006, did not choose to consider the petitioner's candidature for passing appropriate orders of '\ -.-- \r.c4#._T.r *_---_ I -,1 ) - \ 4 wp_5151_2019 NBK, J absorption. Petitioner was appointed in 1996 as Sweeper in 4ft respondent- college. Proposals of absorption/regutarization were sent by 4ft respondent in 2003. Petitioner filed a writ petition in 2006 (i.e., W.P.No.7757 of 2006) wherein this Court adjudicated the case and directed the authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders- No orders were passed by the authorities. Petitioner represented again in2014, followed up by a legal notice in 2016. No response from the respondents till today. We are now in 2025. Almost two decades have passed since the filing of first writ petition in 2006 seeking absorption/regularizationof the services of the petitioner. The petitioner is serving as Sweeper in 4th respondent- college for three decades, since l996,and it is not the case of the respondents that she is not quatified for Sweeper post or that her appointment was illegal.

8. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of Indial, wherein the apex Court, by referring to state of Karnataka vs. umadevi2, held as follows:

26. While the judgment in Umadevi (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 misapptied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. Thisiudgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. lt categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten yeals, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rety on its dicta to indiscriminately reiect 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 iudgment in Umadevi(supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgmenfs explicit 1 2024 |NSC 1034 2 (zpqs1 a 566 1 5 wp_6151_2019 NBK, J acknowledgment of cases where regularazation is appropriate' This selective aPPlicationdistortsthejudgmenfsspiritandpurpose,effectivelyweaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades' 27. lo light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for governmentdepartmentstoleadbyexampleinprovidingfairandstable employment.Engagingworkersonatemporarybasisforextendedperiods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning' not on[contravenesinternationallabourstandardsbutalsoexposesthe organizationtolegalchaltengesandunderminesemployeemorale.By ensuringfairemptoymentpractices,governmentinstitutionscanreducethe burden of unnecessary litigation, promote iob security, and uphold the principlesofjusticeandfairnessthattheyaremeanttoembody.Thisapproach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private Sectortofotlow,therebycontributingtotheoverallbettermentoflabour Practices in the country' g. considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the direction of this court in w.p.N0.7757 of 2006, and further considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves absorption/regularization-

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, directing the 1't respondent to pass appropriate orders of absorption/regul arization of the petitioner, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a.copy of this order. No costs' In view of settled law that the service prior to regularizationshall be counted towards pension and retirement benefits, the petitioner's service since 1996 until the date of regularization shall be counted accordingly as per law' Miscellaneous Petitions- if stend c //TRUE COPY// REKHA RANI REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER 7- To,

1. One CC to Mrs-R.SWARNALATHA, Advocate' [O 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for the State of Telangana. cI

3. Two CD CoPies. BSK BS +-- - - .--j:+- -=-----^'- ^.- '*-= HIGH COURT DATED:2St0GtZ02S iHE SIa i i-\ c' -) 1 5 DEr fr[ll * * Palcti f:1''t ORDER WP.No.61S1 of 201g ALLOWING THE WRIT P WITHOUT COSTS ETITION @-ymr- lzltzf z-s \ \ 0 I