Cherukupalli Aruna Prasad v. The State of Telangana

G.O.Ms.No.2l12, pointing out that he had workt'd for long periods continuously except for artificial breaks. Respondents, how'ever, con t j nued filling-up higher posts through deputertion and promotion, but did not absorb petitioner against available vacancics. Representations were made on 06. 10,2OO8,

24.12.2008, o1.o7.201t, 20.OA.201r, 25.08.20i 1, and O8.O9.2O1i wlrich were rejected by Memo dated 1i.O5.2012 on the ground ol pendency of Writ Petition No. 21772 ol 2O01 . ( t. f. t, L Gt7 I

2.2. Petitioner and others again filed Writ Petition No. 19401 of 2012, wherein this Court directcd that cases be considered under Section 25(H) of the Act in existing or future vacancies, with relaxation of age, and keeping in view G.O.Ms.No.212. Against this, Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 2O13 was filed by respondents while Writ Appeal No. 1 135 of 2O14 was 't Iiled by petitioner and others for clarifications. By the common judgment dated O8.08.2O 14, the Division Bench directed that entire service from inception must be counted under G.O.Ms.No.2 12, those qualifying should be taken into service forthwith without back wages, and those not qualifying should be re-engaged under Section 25(H) or given other benefits like retrospective regularization. Instead of implementing the above directions, respondents issued Memo dated 19.11.2014 impugned in this Writ Petition, stating that petitioner did not { fulfil the conditions under G.O.Ms.No.212 and would only be considered for re-engagement. Challenging this, Contempt Case No. 1982 of 2Ol4 was filed and the same was also closed after observing that reasons in the memo werc not cogent, with a direction to furnish proper reasons. Thereafter, Memo dated

17.08.2015 which is also impugned was issued, showing the number of days petitioner had worked and again stating that he di( not fulfii conditions as on the cut-off date 25. I 1.1993. J..,.' I i 1 -t However, pctitioner was also asked to give willingness uide Memo dated .l4.Oa.2ol5, and he submitted willingness on 28-05.2015, brrt no further action was taken.

2.3. Acr:ording to petitioner, these memos are contrary to the ordcrs of the Division Bench. He relies on Memo dated

10.12.1993, wherein his name reflected at S1.No.26, proving that he was in service as on the cut-off date 25.1 1.1993. Respondents themselves in Contempt Case No. 473 of 1991, admitted that seniority of daily wage clerks was determined by the length of service, ignoring small breaks of less than four months. [n the report dated 19.01.2000, it was t:larified that regularization was based on length of service and not on man days. Despite these admissions, respondents later rejected his claim, u,hich is arbitrary, is what petitioner claims.

2.4. Pr:titioner further states that similarly-situated person Smt. LJsha Rani, who was disengaged along with him, was regularizecl based on length of service uide proceedings clated O4.O9. 1996. Thus, rejection of his case while accepting hers is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16. Petitione r als,r relies on the hnding in Writ Petition No. 194O I of 2012, s'herc this Court held that as per Memo dated lO. 12.1993, petitioner was in service as on 25. 11.1993 and t. t. I there was nothing in G.O.Ms.No.212 to exclude seasonal or casual workers. Hence, he fulliiled the conditions.

2.5. Petitioner further states that after 1997, vacancies arose due to promotions, retirement and death of Junior Assistants, but his case was never considered. The State Board ol Technical trducation and Training and Commissioner of Technical Education, Hyderabad, by letter dated 19.17.2010, pointed out that polytechnics increased by five-fold from 56 to 3O4 and intake from 8,2O0 to 65,520, resulting in a huge increase in workload while sanctioned staff remained static. The Higher Education Department, by U.O.No. i7345 /TA.I/ lO dated 25.O6.2011, proposed sanction of additional posts including Junior Assistants/ Senior Assistants. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 144 dated O6.07.2O1 1 sanctioning posts. Yet, respondents undertook promotions to higher posts without filling Junior Assistant vacancies, thereby denying petitioner the benefit of regulartzation despite clear judicial directions.

3. On behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, counter affidavit was filed stating that petitioner was engaged as a Daily Wage Clerk (DWC) on O7-10-1987 for seasonal work and his services u,ere utilized till 3 1-08- 199 1 on need basis, and he was disengaged on 31-O8-1991. Thereafter, he was re engaged in Janlrary 1992 and his services were again utilized only on need I t '4 t i 6 basis till 31 -12-1997, u,hen he was finally disengaged. It is .,i specifically asserted that petitioner never performed duties for a continuous p< riod of five years, therefore, the question of l. regularizatior-r loes not arise. The Board of Technical Education and Training is a statutory body constituted under the A.P. Education Act, 1982, uide G.O.Ms.No. 14O, dated 24-04-1984. Rule 5 of the litate Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Praclesh (Establishment, Organisation and Jurisdiction) Rules, l9ti3 deals with appointment of the Secretary, its functions, :rn<l other employees of the Board. Under sub-clause (c), the Boarci is cmpowered to create posts and appoint officers only with prior approval of the State Government. It was also provided that officers and staff may be taken on deputation from t, the Dep:rrtmt nt of Technical Education. Accordingly, the Board started with ministerial and class-IV posts sanctioned under G.O.Ms.No. 1(rO LEN & TE Department, dated 3l-05-1984. Since the sanctionr'd posts were not adequate to meet the quantum of work, the Board engaged Daity Wage Clerks and Labourers during peak load or seasonal work as per provisions available in G.O.Ms.No.l5O at ltem 22. Thus, it became a convention that DWCs rvere cngaged whenever there was pressure of work. Usually, morc number of DWCs than required were engaged so I I, t that even if some failed to attend, the time-bound work of the Board u,ould not be hampered.

3.1. Respondents further state that petitioner had not workcd continuously for five years as on 25-11-1993, which was the cut off date in G.O.Ms.No-212, and his case was rejected by order dated 14-11-1996 which order was not challenged by petitioner, hence it attained linality. Therefore, it is not open lor h im to re-agitate the matter after a lapse of twengr years as if the Board has failed to implement the directions of this Court. It is also stated, pursuant to the order in Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989, the Board prepared a seniority list of employees taking into consideration length of service and date of appointment as on 3i O8- 1991; available posts were filled from the seniority list of DWCs. by following roster points and the remaining DWCs/DWLs were terminated by paying compensation and one month wages. Petitioner accepted compensation. Thereafter, seasonal work was occasionally entrusted to daily wage employees titl 18-12-1993. It is further stated that Act 2 of 1994 came into force with effect from 15-01-1994, which prohibits daily wage appointments and regularization of temporary appointments. Section 7 of the Act provides that no temporary or claily wage employee has a right to claim regularization. Further, Government uide G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 26-02-1991 \ \ { 'l { f t, I, ! I lih* I I I while grar-rting additional posts directed to dispense with services oi daily wage employees. Accordingly, services of DWCs were dispensed with on 3 I -08- 199 1 as per law. Between 31-O8-1991 and 18- 12-1993, engagement of workers was only on season;1l basis and not continuous. After Act 2 of 1994, DWCs. couid not be re-engaged even for seasonal work. Responden ts submit that as per the judgment dated 04-07-1991 in Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989, the Board was permittecl to terminate services of DWCs. who were not required by paying them compensation, which was dulf implemented. Therefore, oetitioner's case for absorption or regularization does not arise.

3.2. It is stated, petitioner has not been engaged after 3l-12 1997. As per G.O.Ms.No. 140, dated,24-04-1984 and Rule 5 of the SBTET A.P. Rules, 1983, staff requirement was met through <leputation from the Department of Technical Education. In W. P. M. P.N 0.27416 of 2O01 in W.P.No.21772 of 2O01, dated 17-1O-20O1, this Court directed that respondents shall not fitl an-v posts except backward-reserved vacancies. In view of this interim direction, the Board issued Memo dated 11-05-20 12 stating that the case of petitioner could not be considered during pendency of the writ petition. Respondents rely on Memo dated 1O-12-1993, u,hich is a usual appointment I 9 order for seasonal clerical/ labour work, clearly mentioning that services would be terminated after completlon of the work. On verihcation, it was lound that petitioner did not fulfirll the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.2l2, dated 22-04 1994 which included prescribed qualilications, age limits, observance of reservations, existence ol clear vacancies, and minimum five years of continuous service as on 25- I 1- 1993.

3.3. This Court in Writ Petition No.7123 of 1987 and batch held that the Board, being a statutory body conducting technical examinations, is not an industry under Section 2(1) of the Act. Therefore, the ID Act has no application to the Board or its employees. Secondly, Government in G.O.Ms-No.72 dated 26-02-1991 had directed retrenchment of DWCs., and accordingly, some DWCs. were terminated with retrenchment compensation. This Court in its order dated O4-O7-1991 in W.P.No. 18254 o{ 1989 issued directions including preparation of seniority lists, filling additional sanctioned posts with daily wage employees, following reservation ald roster rules, and preference for daily wagers under Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. It was also directed that those with five years of service may be considered sympathetically for relaxation in recruitment to reglrlar posts. It was left open to the Board to terminate services of dar.{ .,vagers not needed by paying compensation. These ,/ 'I { 't i I l0 directions, the respondents statc, establish that the ID Act was not directly made applicable, but recruitment and regularization I were subject to the said directions. Respondents further state that in compliance with .3.4. the orders, seniority lists werc prepared and posts were l-rlled. Remaining I)WCs. were terminated with retrenchment compensation and one month wages. Petitioner aiso hled Contempt Case No.473 of 199 I 'a'hich was disrnissed with observation that the directions apply only at the time of recruitment, and it was not a llt case for contempt. It is emphasized that after Writ Appeat No. 275 of 1992 disposed on 3l-O1-1996, directions in Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989 merged with those in the Writ Appeal. The Division Bench directed that eligibility for regularization be considered only as t. per G.O. Ms. N o.2 12 dated 22-04 - 199 4.

3.5. Writ Petition No. 7923 of l99l filed by the retrenched t)aily Wage Employees of the Board w:rs disposed of or O4-O7 19()1 with the following order: ' that some of such emplo-vees w.ho ha|e put a number of years service in dallv wages clo not fulfill the requirentents of educational qualifications or are age barred lor being regularly appoint,'d to the post ofJunior Assistants or Attend(:rs. In the fact of this r:ase the Board u,ill s-vm patheticall,r. consider the question of grantintl relaxation or exemptions in case of such persons who have t. '_ '--7 - worked for sufficiently [ong period like five years or more which regularizing the services of the daily rated employees. For all future appointments or terminations the Board will ensure that there is no violation of any law creating a situation as in this case u,hcn it is obtiged to pay for more persons than needed and prefer persons rvithout any advertisement or sponsorship by employment exchange. This direction in this case means that the persons rvho had u,orked earlier on daity wage basis will be preferred for appointment .

3.6. It is also pointed out that in Writ Petition No. 194O1 of 2012, the learned Single Judge directed consideration of petitioners' citses undcr Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. The Board f-rled Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 2OI3 against this, wherein the Division Bench by order dated O8-O8-2O14 directed that service rendered from inception be considered, that those fulfilling G.O.Ms.No.212 conditions be regularized without back wages, and that others be re-engaged under Section 25-H when work exists. The Board thereafter issued Memo dated l9-ll-2014 informing petitioner of the decision. Alleging non- implementation, Contcmpt Case No- l9a2 of 2014 was filed ald disposed of on l3-O3-2O15 u,ith a direction to furnish reasons. The Board complied u.ith and issucd Memo dated 17-O8-2015. Another Contempt Case No. 1931 of 2O15 was hled which was dismissed on 25-11-2016 as misconceived, with libert5r to seek remedies as per earlier ohservalions. -/ { t { I I \

3.7 . Rr:spondents clarify that appointments of certain persons like -qmt. Usha Rani were strictly as per seniority list prepared under Writ Petition No. 18254 of 198!). Petitioner, being junior, was not discriminated. They also state that six Superintenderrts and eleven Senior Assistants on deputation from DTE wr:re repatriated as pcr orders in \Vrit Petition No.8544 of 2008. Promotions were made from fr:eder cadres accordingiy. Ir is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Ka,r7,,a,t(,,ka u. Una Devil helcl that casual or daiiy wage employees cannot claim rc'gularization unless appointed in accordancc r.r'ith rulcs and selection process. This constitutional bench judgment is binding and applies to the present case. Similarly, in d. Manjula Bashini a. Managing Director, A.P. Women's Cooperatioe Fina,nce Corporotlon Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court u1;l-reld the cut- off date in G.O.Ms.No .212 and the amendmen ts under Act 3/1998 and Act 27 11998. It was hcld that only those who completed fi,ze years continuous service as on 25- 1 i 1993 are eligible for rc'gularization, and others are not entitled.

3.8. Respondents conclude by asserting thzrt the Board has at all times implemented the directions of this Cor-rrt and thb *-Government Orders inctuding G.O.Ms.No.72 dated ' (2006) 4 scc I I I I I 26-02-1991, G.O.Ms.No.14O dated 24-04-1984 and G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994. Petitioner has not satisfied the main condition of complcting five years continuous service as on 25-11-1993, even after counting Sundays and holidays. His engagements were scasonal and not continuous. He accepted compensation on termination and never challenged the rejection order dated 14 1 1- 1996. Therefore, he is not entitled to regularization or absorption. It is praycd that the writ petition be dismissed.

4. Petitioner fited reply to the above counter stating that in the counter, it is statcd that SBTET stated that they recruited only SC, ST, PH and Compassionate appointments and they have not explained why they clid not fill up the OC and BC categories posts. In several memos filcd earlier before this Court, SBTET themselves stated that services of the retrenched Daily Wage Clerks would be filled up on regular basis as and when vacancies arise, in compliance with the judgment of this Court dated O4.O7.1991.It is pointed out that there are number of vacancies in the cadre of .Iunior Assistant and 'Iypist in SBTET, which was admitted and submitted in different affidavits by the respondents themselves, and therefore prays I { { I f I. I I ) ...i l.l this Court mal/ direct the respondents to regularize his services against the existing vacancies of Junior Assistant or Typist.

4.1 . Pe titioner clarifies that respondents themselvcs on several occasi,;ns issued memos stating that servir:es lt'ould be regularizcd in accordance with this Court judgment dated

04.07.1991, as and when vacancies arose, birsed on the senioriry list prepared by the Board in accordance u,ith thc said judgment. 'lhe petitioner therefore, reiterates his t'ntitlement to be considerecl for regularization as per the diret:tions of this Court. lt is stated that as per G.O.Ms.Nr>. 160, dated

31.O5. 1984, which was filed along with the counter, thc Government sanctioned various posts in diffe rent cadres, including 24 posts of Junior Assistants, 12 posts of Senior Assistants ar-rd 6 posts of Tlpists. In the said G.O.. sanction was accorded for deputation of officers as shown in Annexure II to the State Board of Technical Education and Training for a period of three years from the date of taking charge. Petitioner states that after completion of the three-year deputation, himself and other employees were appointed in 1987 as Junior Assistants and Typists on daily wage basis, but they were in fact working aga.inst the sanctioned posts. Hence, the contention of responden ts that daily-wage clerks were engaged only u.hen there \as pressure of work or for seasonal u,ork a nd that more "a"' number of DWCs than required were called for, is unsustainable. Petitioner and other employees, though working in sanctioned posts, have been requesting the authorities to 'I regularize their services. The Board, howcver, relrenched them under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by paying retrenchment compensation w.e.f. 18.06. 1991.

4.2. Against such retrenchment, the affected employees approached the Honble High Court bv filing W,P.No.18254 of 1989 seeking directions to continue them as DWCs and for consequential direction to regularize their services. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the writ petitions by common order dated O4.O7. 1991 directing the respondents to comply with the requirement of preference as applicable under Section 25-H of the I.D. Act, keeping in view the length of service. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Court that some of the employees did not fulfil educational qualification or age criteria, and the Board, on humanitarian grounds, considered granting relaxation while regolarizing daily rated employees. Petitioners fited Writ Appeals No. 275 and I2O7 of 1992, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. The Hon''lele Division Bench recorded the submission of the Board's counsel that a seniority list of daily wage employees had been prepared pursuant to the judgment and as and when vacancies arose, they were being called in 'I 't I ! I '.1 l6 order of seniority lor regularization and out ol 73 DWCs, services of 18 had already been regularized while 55 remained to be considered. The Division Bench by common order dated

31.01.1996 clrrected the Board to consider the cases o[ the rcmaining 5:t within three months in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.2I 2, dated 22.O4.1994, and regularize eligible employees.

4.3. I1 is further stated, after hling the Writ Appcals, petitioner an<l other similarly-situated employees were taken back and continued in service till 3 1. 12.1997 , thcir names bcing includ<'d in the seniority list. Petitioner rvas eligible, possessing qr,ralifications and being within the age' limit zrt the date of entry into service. Some employees were subsequenth, considered for regularization. Petitioner made scvererl representations dated 06. 1O.2OO8, 24.12.2OO8 and O1.07.2O11, yet respondr:nts continued to aver that petitioner was not eligible unde: G.O.Ms.No.212 and disengaged him, which is u,holly illegal and unsustainable. It is also stated, Government issued G.O. Ms.No. 144, dated 06.07.2011, based on the proposal of the Director of Technical Education Dopartment for creation of posts in the cadre of Junior Assistants, Senior Assistants, Attenders, Computer Operator, etcetera. The Government sanctioned 7 posts of Junior Assistanls, 2 p<;sts of \/ t I I t* - t1 Senior Assistants and 2 posts of Superintenden [s, besides permitting the Chairmal, SBTET to engage Computer Programmer, Computer Operator and Office Subordinates. He states that himself and others ought to have been accommodated in the vacancies created under G.O.Ms.No. 160, dated 31.O5.1984, after the deputation period, or in the vacancies created in G.O.Ms.No. i44, dated 06.07.2O11. Accordingly, he submitted representations dated 2O.Oa.2O71,

25.08.2011 and O8.09.2Oi 1. However, by memo dated

11.O5.2O12, respondents informed that the request could not be considered in view of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 21772 of 2OO1 which was closed on 19.O9.2019, hence, the reason given no longer survives.

4.4. Respondents, according to pelitioner, omitted the number of days worked to deprive him of rightlul regularization. He asserts that he was working as on 25.11.1993 and had put in the requisite service. Respondents cannot now turn around and state that the Board is not an industry under Section 2fi) of the I.D. Act, when earlier retrenchment was carried out under Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. Subsequent to the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7963 of 1991 and batch, the names of petitioner and others rvere included in thc seniority list for regularization, and they w'ere taken back into -'' ./ ,I I { I I -i I \ I service subiect to certain conditions, including forfeiture of recruitment il appointment was not.accepted, and deletion from senioritv if full sessional work was not attended. I)etitioner accepte<l such conditions and continued in st:rvice, albeit for meagre salary, in the hope of regularization under G.O.Ms.Nr;.2 I 2, dated 22.O4.1994.

4.5. Seniority list was prepared based on length of service zrnrl roster points are illegal and arbitrary. Respondents admit that length of service was considered for re-engagement, but to evacle regularization, they deliberately engaged DWCs. lor short spells, then replaced them with others, which amounts to unfair labour practice. It is pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in multiple decisions that contract employccs cannot be replaced by other contract employees and are entitled to continuation. The averments in para- 1O(C) demonstrates that respondents did not follow procedure of regularization under Writ Appeal No. 275 of 1992

4.6. Petitioner refers to Writ Petition No, 19401 of '2012, wherein he along with others sought absorption as Junior Assistants and Typists pursuant to the orders in Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989 and Writ Appeal No. 272 of 1992. Writ Petition u'as disposed on 12.08.2013 and in para-6 of the order, it was spe<'ifically recorded that petitioner had worked as on I I I I9

25.11.1993 in seasonal/clerical work under memo dated 1O.12.1993 and that there was nothing in G.O.Ms.No.212 excluding such employees. The Court recorded that petitioner worked from 199 1 to 1997 , putting in more than 5 ycars service, and directed consideration of his case under Section 25 H of the I.D. Act, 1947, in existing or future vacancies, with relaxation of age. It is further stated that the Board filed Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 2O13 and 1135 of 2014 against lhc order dated 12.08.2O13. The Honlcle Division Bench observed that petitioners were engaged in 1991, retrenched in 1997, and taken back under Section 25-H of the I.D. Act, and that servicc rendered prior to 1992 must also be taken into account under G.O.Ms.No.212. The Division Bench directed that those qualifying under G.O.Ms.No.212 should be taken into service forthwith, though without back wages.

5. Heard learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondent - State. 6. This Court has carefully considered the pleadings of the parties, documentary materiai placed on record and the submissions advanced.

7. It is not in dispute that petitioner was initially engaged in 1987 as Junior Assistant/[pist on daily u'age basis and continued in service with intermittent breaks till I l t I t .{ I I I t l0

31.12.1997 . It is also admitted that proceedings dated

17.06.1991 ullre issued retrenching certain daily wage clerks, and petitioner along with others approached this Court in Writ Petition No.1 3254 of 1989. By the common order dated 04.O7.1991 , this Court directed respondents to consider regularization keeping in view the length of sen'ice and the principb of St ction 25(H) of the Act. Subsequently, Writ Appeal No.275 of 19ir2 u,as preferred and the Division Bench by order dated 31.O1.1996 directed respondents to consider the eligibility of 55 persons, including petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.O,1 .1994. Out of them, 18 employees were regularized, while the ci,rst'of petitioner was rejected.

8. 1'he grievance of petitioner is that rejection of his case under Memos dated 19.1 1.2O14 and 17.08.2O15 is contrary to the binding directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989, Writ Appeal No.275 of 1992, Writ Petition No.I94O1 <tt 2012, Writ Appeal No.1795 of 2O13 and Writ Appeal No. 1 135 of 2014. He asserts that his name hnds placc in the seniority list prepared under Memo dated

10.12.1q93, thereby proving that he was in service as on the crucial cut-c,ff date 25.1 1.1993. [t is also pointed out that similarlv-situated employee Smt. Usha Rani was regularized, while denial ro him amounts to hostile discrimination. 2l

9. On the other hand, respondents contend that petitioner had not rendered five years of continuous service as on 25. I 1.1993, which is the essential requirement under G.O.Ms.No.2 12, hence his case was rightly rejected. It is further contended that petitioner accepted retrenchment compensation, did not challenge the rejection order dated 14.11.1996, and therefore cannot reopen the matter. Respondents also rely on the prohibition contained in Act 2 of 1994 and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Kantataka u. Uma Detl2 to submit that daily wage appointments do not confer any right of regularization.

10. In view of the above, the following issues arise for consideration: 1) Whether petitioner was in service as on 25. 1 1. 1993 and lulfirlled the conditions under G. O. Ms. No. 2 I 2? ii) Whether the impugned memos dated 19.1 1.2Oi4 and

17.08.2015 are in conformity with the earlier directions of this Court? (iii) Whether denial of regularization amounts to discrimination, particularly in view of regularization of similarly-situated employees? ' (1006) J scc I i i t i I I I I I 1 \

11. P9INT NqJ: A perusal of the record discloses that in Memo datt'd 10.12.1993, petitioner's name wzrs shown at \ Sl.No.26, whi< h proves that he was very much in service as on

25. 11.1993. Iiurther, the report dated 19.01.20OO c'larihes that eligibility for regularization was to be determined on the basis of length of service and not man-days. Thus, the plea of respondents l-hat petitioner had not worked continuously for five years cannol bc sustained, since artificial breaks c:innot defeat the benef-rt of G.O-Ms.No.212.

12. PAIfff_ Xe.! The Division Bench judgment dated

08.08.20 14 in Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No. 1135 of' 2Ol4 clearly directed that entire service from inception must be taken into account. Respondents were bound to implemenl- the same by considering the case of petitioner for regularizatior. if he otherwise satisfied conditions of G.O.Ms.No.2I 2. Instead of doing so, they rejected his case citing non-fulfilment of conditions, without assigning coqent reasons, which amolrnts to deliberate non-compliance of judicial directions.

13. PaINe&. g: Petitioner specifically established that Smt. Usha Rani, who stood on the same footing, was fpgularized. No ) respondcnts lor plausible explanation has been given by treating petitioner differently. Such selective ,/ regularization violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Reliance on Uma Devi's case (supra) is misplaced, inasmuch as the Division Bench orders, which specifically dealt with petitioner's case, were rendered much after the said decision and have attained finality. Once the Division Bench issued positive directions, respondents cannot take shelter under general principles laid down in Utna Deti's ca.se (supra).

14. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that . impugned Memos dated 19.11.2014 and 17.08.2015 are unsustainable in law, as they are contrary to binding dircctions of this Court and discriminatory in nature. Petitioner, having been in service as on 25. 11.1993, is entitled to be considered for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, and denial thereof amounts to arbitrary action.

15. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, setting aside the memos dated lg.ll.2Ol4 and 17 .Oa.2OI1. Respondents are directed to regularise / absorb petitioner from the date of his initiai appointment as per the order in Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989 and directions (a) and (b) issued in Writ Appeal Nos. 1795 of 2O13 and 1135 of 2Ol4 and clarification given by the Board dated 19.O1.2OOO, duly taking into account the total length of service of petitioner from the { I { , I . i -l I . !\ with all <;onsequential date of first engagement together benefits. No costs. 16. (,tonsequentlv, the miscellaneous A1:plications, il any shall slan<l closed. t That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH, The Chief Justice on this Thursday, the Eighteenth Day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. To, i/TRUE COPY// SD/" C. DEEPIKA TANT REGISTRAR ION OFFICER Es '15 1 . The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Jducation Department, Secretariat, Flyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Chairman, State Board of Technical Education & Training (SBTET), State of Telangana, 7th Floor, BRKR Government Offices Building, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

3. The Secretary, State Board of Technical Education & Training (SBTET), State of Telangana, 7th Floor, BRKR Government Offices Building, Lower Tank Bund, Hyde"abad.

4. One CC to IlRl CHERUKUPALLI ARUNA PRASAD [PARTY-IN-PERSON] 5. Two CCs tc, GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana ;:t Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CCs to ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Cocies BSR PVL \qr l HIGH COURT DATED: 18109t2025 ORDER WP.No.45056 ,rf 2016 TiIE :_) $ * 1I iliT ZW z .J' ALLOWING TI,IE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS .,^"tA r\(o\ -[6i: