Affi ;;"ih;;is;Ja, 1i"'itagn"rrv' Secunderabad v. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. V. UMA DEVI, SC The Court made the following: ORDER 2 JAK. J tL P.No 9563 ol20l4 THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETIT ION No.9563 OF 2OL4 ORDER: This writ petition is hled seeking the following relief: "to issue an order, directiott or Wit more particularlA one in tlle nature of Writ of Mandamus or ony other appropiate wit (i) decloing the action of the respondents in not regularizing the seruices of the Petitioner from the date of initial appointment i.e., 22.02.1994 as lllegal, orbitrory and unjust; and (ii) consequently direct the Respondents to regular[ze the seruices of the Petitioner uith effect from the date of appointment i.e., 22.02.1994 tuittt a further direction to release all consequential benefits of regularization ond pass such other order or orders as this lTon'ble Couri mag deem fit and proper in ttrc interest of justice."

2. Heard Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, rcpresenLing Mrs. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel lor petitioner and Mrs. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents'

3. Brief facts: An advertisement was published for walk in interviews by the Hindustan Aeronautic Limited Secondary School for the posts of Post Graduate Teachers (Physics), Librarian and Offuce Assistant in the month of December, 1993. Petitioner' a commerce graduate, qualified in technical requirements, made an application' Selection Committee prepared a panel of sclectcd candidatcs, among which, 3 JAK, J W.P.No.956l of20tj Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari was selected for the post of Office Assistant. By an olfer of appointment, dated 13.01.1994, Mrs. Annapunta Tiwari u,as requested to join. Hcr basrc pay was fixed at Rs.910/- per month in the scale of Rs.910_3O_ l240_35_1625. In adclition to the basic pay, she was eligible for D.A., H.R.A. and C.C.A. However, Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari did not join. 4' Mrs. N. Sharada (petitioner herein) was the next best candidate in the selection list. pursuant to an cffer of appointment dated 22.O2 1994, petitioner joined the School as Office Assistant and was pard consolidated sa1ary of Rs.1,2O0/_ per month. She was terminaled from service on 2g.O3.2OOg. 5- W.p.Nc.ll77g ot 20Og was {iled, challenging the Lermination. By an order dated 06.03.2011, this Court directed to pay the mirrimum pa',, scale to the petitioner in w.p.M.p.No.2593 of 2ot7 in W.P.No. l l't7g of 2OOg. A Contempt Case No. I333 of 2Ol2 was filed for non compliance of orders dated O6.03.201 1.

6. By ordr:r dated O9.OT.2013, (W.p.No .11778 of 2018 and c.c.No.1333 <tf 2or,2), a learned Singre Judge of this court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the termination order dated Present writ petition is hled seeking

28.O3.2OO8 (trx.p2O) JllK 'l W.P Na9563 oI20l1 4 regularization of services of petitioner' Petitioner made several representations seeking reguiarization' but' were not considered' hence, writ Petition' Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submitted that 7. pursuant to advertisement in December' 1993' for three posts' of which, one was for Ofhce Assistant in HAL Senior Secondary School, (HAL Town Ship Balanagar' Hyderabad' afhliated to CBStr Ner,,' Delhi), petitioner applied lt is further submitted that eight candidates were shortlisted for interview to the post of Office Assistant by the committee' petitioner was second in the selection list. It is also submitted that one Mrs Annapurna Tiwari was selected for Office Assistant post' was given appointment order dated 13.O1.1994 andwas asked to report for duty' but she did not JOln

8. lt is submitted that in the offer of appointment to Mrs.AnnapurnaTiwari(trx.P2Page17),basicpaywasflrxedat Rs.91O/- per month and eligible for D A'' H'R A'' C'C A'' fixing totalemolumentsatthebasicpayofRS.l,8TT.3ol_.Itisfurther submitted that selected candidate would be on probation for a period one year from the date of appointment That her services would Lre terminated after giviqg three months of notice in writing' I 5 JAK, J W.P.Na9563 o!20t4 that on confirmation, she shall be eligible to contribute for E.p.F and shall a;so be covered by group gratuity, group lnsurance craim, as per rult_,s of the school f . it is pointed out that Mrs. Annapurna Tir;r.ari did not join, that b1' an rrffer of appointment dated 22.02.rgg4, petitioner was offered thc post of Office Assistant on certain terms and conditions. It is also contended that petitioner was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 1,2O0/- Der month and that appointment was purely on temporary basis and could be terminated with one month,s notice. 10. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that offer of appointment to Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari was dated 13.Ol.i 99a $),x.p2)and offer of appointment to petitioner is dated 22.O2.1gg4 (trx.ps). It is further su brnitted that pursuant to the advertisement, Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari, petitioner stood first and second in the selection list oI the candidates for the post of Ofhce Assistant along with six others who are placed from 3 to g. It is contended that the post of Office Assistant was offered to the selected candidate (who stood first) with a pay scale of Rs.91O/_ with other emoluments and the basic pay lxed at Rs.1,877.3O/_, the same pay package would be applicable to the pedtioner as she was the next best 6 JAK, J W.P.No.9563 oI20la candidate (number 2 in ttre list of selected candidates' by a committee of five, who conducted the interview)' Learned Senior Counsel invited the attention of this Court to 11 trx.P4, wherein, it is stated thal the committee shortlisted the petitioner. It is the specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel that though an offer of appointment was made to the first candidate, she did not join the services and the same terms and conditions would be applicable to petitioner' That petitioner was shortlisted by the same committee (interview committee)' but the offer of appointment to petitioner daLed 22 'O2 ' 1994 reflects different terms and conditions, not tenable under law' That it is forthesameadvertisement,alleightcandidatesappeared.Itis pointed out that there was not more than a month's gap between the letter reque sting Mrs' Annapurna Tiwari to join (dated O8.O2.tgg4, Ex.P3, Telegram) and the offer of appointment to petitioner (dated 22-02.1994)' That there was only a difference of 14 days and the petitioner was offered the appointment with different terms and conditions' That the terms of offer of appointment of Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari and petitioner are at variance, that the offer of appointment to petitioner was on consolidated pay and the same is not tenable under law' 7 JAK, J W.P No.9563 oJ 20t 4 r:. '.,i.".

12. Learned Senior Counsel invited the atLention to writ petitions filed by petidoner seeking minimum time scale and the challenge to termination order dated 2g.O3.2OOg, which was set aside by a learnecl Single Judge of this Court. It is submitted that subsequent to the issuance of termination of thc petitioner on the ground of falling of strength of school, there werc advertisements/ notificatiols culminating in inducting teachers in the years 200g, 20 10, 20 13, 20 t6 anci 2O2O.

13. Inviting the attention of this Court to Ex.p25 at page 55, it is pointed out b1. learned Senior Counsel that notifications were issued on 1rr.05.2009 and 13.03.2010 inviting applications for various posts of teaching staff in the school to substantiate the claim that irr spite of the falling strcngth of school, staff u,ere recruited. lt is lastly submitted that petitioner has put in service for more than 3O years, having joined the ser.vice as Office Assistant, is drawing a pay of Rs.22,OOO/ _ per ntonth. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon,ble Supreme Court in Rabinaragan Mohapatra u. Storte of Orissa and. othersl, for tl're proposition that once a staff in school is joined on a proper note, services of such appointees are to be regularized, he I

11991.; 2 Suprcmc Courr Cases 599 JAK' J W.P.No9563 oI20l4 8 has invited the attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos S and 9 of the said judgment of resPondents the month of

14. Learned counsel appearlng on behalf submitted that the advertisement issued December, 1993, for three posts makes no mention whether the posts to be hl1ed up are in regular cadre lt is further submitted that the offer of appointment to petitioner dated 22'02'1994 was on a consolidated pay of Rs 1'2OO/- and appointment was purely on temporary basis. It is also submitted that petitioner was offered the post for non-joining by one Mrs Annapurna Tiwari and that respondents are entitled to offer the appointment to the post of Ofhce Assistant on terms and conditions which the respondents feel fit and necessary as per the requirement of school' It is also suLrmitted that petitioner is paid the time scale as per directions of the Court and that she has been continuing in service pursuant to interim orders issued by this Court and cannot claim regularisation as a matter o[ righl'

15.ItiSsubmittedthatatthetimeofappointmentofpetitioner, and that at the time of the strength of school was 2 '384 termination in the year 2OO8' the total strength fell to 863 and as on date, the strength is still decleased' that' it is highly improbable 9 JAK, J u/.P.No.956J oJ)at 4 that the services of petitioner can be considered for regularization due to the lalling strength and that seeking regularization would burden the school with additional costs and that financial position school would only be lowered still. It is also submitted that school was established fcrr the purpose of children of IJAL as a social welfare measure and admissions are being offerec for children with a minimum school fec, the school has to run pa_ving salaries lor teachers and oth,,-r employees of school That, Lhe relief sought for, i.e., regularizinEl the petttioner, cannot be granted servlces of 16 Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. l7 A notific.ation was issuecl in December, 1993, by principal of the school for :he follor.i,ing posts: "WALK-IN INTtrRVIFS HAL SENTOR SECONDaRv siunnr HAL TOWNSHIP, BALANA';; " ", . HyDERABAD: S00 042 (Co_educationat trngtish M;;;__ ,"ir..f Affiliated to CBStr, ];_pcr (nhv"i.s)_: rir;1 ..T",X#L,,o crass post Graduate in ptrysrcs uith B.Ed.. Ar Ieasi s v"r." ."i..iiJi tn teaching lh{:i"" lo cBSE/intermediate sruden"t"l""'',.,,." z. Ll'rartat,. : Bach erors^ Degree I Library sciencc rvirh three ,S";;; years experience in an e"gri"f, rr,rJ"- "" Lrbrarian, fnowledSe of Computer appiications is desirable. -,,i.iil',' n'J:'.i; ; it',e" h j; "io,"" t"*.il,'' o * b ry in Diproma j,,"'";;;:,:I'lii,l'q!"' crade' iiiJ Post Graiuare npprr.atrons (pGDA) (OR) tiploma in ^ra . i.r l0 JAK, J Ir.P No.9i63 of 2014 . Computers in ofhce Management (DCO) &IGNOU Previous of using Compuiers in the office Administration is ""p"ii"r." essentiaJ. 6r.aiJ"a"" meeting the above requirements may attend the i;;";i;; along wiih Bro-data & original Certifrcates on the dates mentioned below POST PGT (PHYSICS) : Librarian Ofhce Asst Date of Interview 22.72.93 ThuiSdaY 9 a.m. 23.12.93 ThursdaY 1 P.m. 23.12.93 ThursdaY 1.P.m." : :

18. trligibility criteria for the post of Of[rce Assistant were also put up. A total of eight candidates applied lor the post of Office Assistant. An interview Committee was set up consisting of hve members "interview was conducted on l2'1 94 for selection Interview committee consisted of following members: Sri. G Mansharamani Sri. A.K.Trivedi Sri. K. Mathew Sri. I.V.S.D. Vara Prasad Sri. K. Srinivasa MurthY Chatrman Treasurer Secretary Principal O thce SuPdt." The I 2 3 4 5

19. The Committee, afler interviewing eight candidates' selected one Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari for the post of Office Assistant ln Proceedings dated 13.01 1994 ExP4, it is stated that' Committee short iisted Mrs. N. Sharada (petitioner herein)' It is further observed from the proceedings dated 13 0i'1994 tr-:at the post of Ofhce Assistant was offered in the scale of Rs 91O-3O- 1230-35- 1625 with basic pay of Rs 91O/- to Mrs Annapurna Tiwari' JAK. J t4.P.No 9563 oJ20ti !-:::i- .,r =

20. trx. P2 is the offer of appointment, for the post oI. Office Assistant, dated 1994 from the Chairman, Treasurcr, Annapurna Tiwan, the follotvrng are the terms Secretary to Mrs

13.O 1 and conditions: "Reference is made to your application for the sultject: post and the sui y-t!us.w"r,.*pi.I";"'".""r:;[H1.;Tf I_,n:"i11 OFFTCE ASSTSTANT in our school rr.,I ioft*i*"i""rrn" and t:onditions: ., Y9r. Basic pay is hxed at Rs.91O.O0 per month in the scate of Rs.91O_30-1240_35 1625. r"liJi,."i"'irr" .?,1:,: o", you are also eligible fo. o.e, ;-;, ';'.c A':" Ltn (le r: a. D._\. r,ir 83o/n ol basic pav L l] l, A ,a 2Ooi of basic pay c. C.('.A Rs 30/- per month. _ Your total emoluments at the basic pay as hxed above witl be Rs.1877.30. you. appoini"iJ, l_ff rr" t: your presenting a satisfactory fr4.ai.rf n"p*, :lbJ".t, trom tr Medical Officer. Yo., rvill be on probation for a period of cne vcerr "_ f^.-^l::-1i:. of your appointment and thi; ;;;; ;"y ue exretlcled I considered necessary. you rvill be deemed as conhrmed in this post ..f-y if to the effect in writing. "r""*rrii_r,"a I)uring the probatuonar5z period, your services can . be terrninated with one month .s notlce'on eitile;;.'u. payment of one month's sa1ary (Basic+Oal i"' t"" .t notice without assigrring any reason. ( )n confirmation your serviccs can be tcrmit)ated . by giving three months notice in *riti.r; ;; ;;;;;'";. or payrnent of three months saJary (BasiI+ Oe1 in fieu ot n o tice. On confirmation you shall be eligrble to contribute - for EP5 a-nd sha]l alst Ue .""","a- i?,4'-:, :";l:].:: a,,d Group r.,"r.r,,"" rilJ:"j" ol:'H,o.=t':?tiil: are required ro_ give an undertakjng tjrat vou ,,r,, -I1,1 wLr.r no . appty ror arly other job withou t first-obtaining wrrtten permission from th : comPetent authorit;, of the school. school. \- 12 J4K, J W P.No.9563 of20t1 You are required to trring the following. certilicates in o;girlJ uro"! *irt a set of xerox copies time of joining. Documentary evidence in proof of your date of birth.' O"."rn"","l."rtihcate s irrproof of your educational arrd other qualifications. Docunients/ certifrcates in proof of your prevlous experience. Reiieving certificate from previous employer' expenses. On the compietion of 58 years you sha-ll be.retired from the s.rr.ice of the school ald you shall no clalm to continue in the service thereafter' You will be required to report for duty at your own In the event of accountance of above terms and you are required to report to the undersigned U"f-" 2.2.94. li no intimation of your acceptance "ondilio.t" ;i: il"-;ff* is received bv t294, it will be presumed "" ". ifr"a V", are not interested and this offer will be treated as cancelled."

21. By letter dated 08 02' 1994, Mrs Annaptrrna Tiwari was asked to join the post of Oifice Assistant' failing which' offer would stand cancelled. A Ietter daLed' 22 02'1994 was addressed by the Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer of Hindustan Aeronautic Township Education Committee (Ex P5) offering the appointment for the post of Ofhce Assistant to Mrs N' Sharada' The terms and condilions of offer of appointment are as follows: 'Reference is made to your application for the post of Office Assistant and the subsequent ,interview us on 12-01-94. We have pleasure in offering you the po"i of Off,.. Assislarl in our school on the following terms & conditions: 1. You will be paid a consolidatgd salarV. o.f Rs l2OO/- (Rupees one ti'rousand tow hundred only) per month , ',. l3 JAK, J W P.No.9563 aI20 t I :, and in addition no other aliowances are admissible to you. 2- Ylur appointment will be. subject to your ltresentrng a salislactory medical report frol Officcr. ."Sr.;J;;;.ri " ;;;"; ,o"",n

3. Your appointment is purely temporary and vorir services can be terminated with .". ;;;;i ." eithe r side or payment of " " co,soridated pav, withou r ;;";il; ;;';;:;;. .y" r^equired to give an undertaking that you wrll 1.--"o" nor...,pply t9r anv orher job *tt ori ri"i'..odtlJning wnttt:n permission from the competent "*fr..i y li ,fr. school. normal- working hours are from 8.O[) a.rn. 16 P ^I":r y.1uu p.nt on ali working days ald on Sundays g.OO to i z. r J p.m. except Mondays. In addirion due ro exigerrcics of work. you may ue .equi..a.1o ;;, k ;; ,;: other davs/timings. 6. You have to abide by the rrles and retrrlations framed by the H.A Township Education C";;ii;;;;_ timc t3 time. , You wrll be required to report for cluty at your own l^-,1: ,n. event of acceptance of the above terms a]ld condllrons you are required to reporl t. tt. r"a". r"";#A on or before 23_2_94. If no ir_,timati;^-;;;*?;". acceptance of this offer is received by 23_2-94, ii-*iiU" presurrecl that you are not interest"a urtJtt." .,fi".-*ff bc treatcd as calcelled.,, expcnse.

22. W. P. No l1Z7 g of 20Og was hled by petitioner herein challenging the termination order dated 2g.O3.2OOS, pending writ petition, a miscellaneous petition was filed seeking minimum pay scale to be granted to petitioner, miscellaneous petition rvas ailowed. A Contempt Case was filed for non_compliance of order in WPMP.No.259.3 of 2O1l in W.p.No. 1 lZ78 of 2008. By final order t4 JAK, J tl.P.No.9563 oJ20l4 datedog.o|.2ol3,inthewritpetition(andinthecontemptcase),a learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order: "7. The only contention of the respondents is that since the strength of the students came down' the service of the petitioner was dispensed - with The Iearned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have issued notihcations dated 16 05 2009 .r-,d 13.03.20 1O for appointing the staff after terminating the service of the petitioner and shown .ofl"" of notifications. The learned counsel for ."ipo.td"nt" has not disputcd the fact that .the respondents have subsequently recruited the staff' ifri."fo.", terminating the services of petitioner on the eround of surplus staff does not arise' " 8. Si.t..^rro opportunity was given to the petitioner and no enquiry wis conducted and some allegations harr. b.en maie against the pctitioner, it is clear that terminating the service of the petitioner without issuing anv notice"ald wrthout holding enquiry is illega-l and accordingly, the Lermination order is seL aside lt is cl.ar froi-r- ih. record that the petitioner was appointed through regular process of selection Though the petitiJner sJught regulations of her services and also ct.rulle.tged the-termination order, I zrm of the view that the petltioner cannot seek both the reliefs in the same writ petition. However, it is Ieft open to the petitioner.to lile a separate writ petition for regularisation other benehts if at all her services are not regularised' 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed The - termination ordei is set-aside The petitioner would be entitled for continuity of service and all attendant benehts. No order as to costs Miscellaneous petitioner' if a;ry pending in this writ petition shall stand closed- iO. It ui.* of passing orders in the writ petition' thc respondents are directed to pass consequential orders rvithin six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; In view of passing orders in writ petition' contempt case is closed. It is left open to the petltloner to initiate fresh contempt proceedings in case this order is not implemented by the respondents " - - . zc. Pursuant to order of the learned Single Judge' the present writ petition is flled with a prayg extracted supra i I I ;j I I I I I I i I I -.' :;ra.i JAK, J tt' P No 9563 of20t1 l5

24. Petitioner was offered the post o[ Ofhce Assistant, vide an offer of appointment (letter) dated 22.o2.1gg4. pursuant to an advertisement, petitioner made an application, .was interviewed by a committee, of five members, was shortlisted at number 2. Candidate u,ho stood first in the interview v,as offered the appointment vide proceedings daLed 13.01.1994 (Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari). As she did not join, the next best candidate petitioner was offered the post. a

25. It is pertinent to note that, the principal of School acldressed a letter requesting Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari to join the post of Office Assistant vide letter dated Og.O2. i994. The offer of appointment to pe [itioner letter dated 22.O2.t994 It defies the krgic of this Court, as to how the person, who was the second bcst candidale, could have been offered the zrppointrnenL on a totally diflerent set of terms and conditions, absolutely at total variance to the offcr of appointment dated 1 3 . O 1 . 1994. The contention that the posts were not regular posts cannot stand the test of time . The offer of appointment to Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari was, with a basic of Rs.91O/_, eligible for D.A., H.R A. and C.C.A., total emoluments at the basic was fixed at Rs.1,g77.t3O/_. t6 JAK, J W.P.No.9563 oI2011

26. The offer of appointment of fixing the basic pay to N.S. Sharada who underwent the same selection process has to be on the same set of terms and conditions, such variance in terms and conditions is untenable, arbitrary, without any basis and cannot be sustained. Petitioner was offered the post of Ofhce Assistant on a consolidated salary, no explanation is forth-coming from the respondents as to why there is a variance in the set of terms and conditions, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of offer of appointment of Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari. No grounds are forthcoming for the variance in terms and conditions' If at all the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the same advertisement, which she has been, she should be offered the appointment on the same terms and conditions of Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari. 27 . Question which falls for consideration is the rcgularization of services. It is not in dispute that pelitioner is still in service continuing in the post of Ofhce Assistant in the minimum of pay of scale of Rs.22,OO0/- per month. The contention put forward L'y learned counsel for respondents is that the financial resources of the school are depleting and any relief for regularization would only burden the school. It is pointed by the iearned counsel for I I I l 17 J4K, ) w.P Na 9563 oI20 t 1 r,-1* respondenls that the strength of the school has been lalling and it rs on the verge of closure 2a. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner pointed out that various posts of teaching staff in the school were filled up, after inviting applications in the years 2013, 2016 and 2020. When queried, learned counsel for respondents has not ofi.ered anv explanzrtion.

29. It is observed from trx.p25 (at page 55) in the order of thc learned Singlc Judge dated 06.03.2O 1 1 that during the pcnde ncy of the r.l'rit petition, respondents issued two notihcations dated 16.05.2009 and 13.O3.201O inviting applications for various posts of teaching staff in the school. If the decreasing strength of school is the criteria for non_regul arizing of services of petitioner, then inviting applir:ations for various posts of teaching staff u,ould delinitely shou s the submission of respondents in poor light. There is onll.one C)ffice Assistant post in the school anrl petitioner is discharging cluties as Office Assistant from 22.02.1gg4, for more than 30 1.ears. Rest of the staff are working in various posts of teaching staff. No record is produced that other teaching staff are working on consolidated basis, except on the post of Office Assis tant. i I i I l, r8 JAK, J w P No 9563 o/ 20tl

30. Even otherwise, in the offer of appointment made to Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari, it is clear that a basic pay was fixed at Rs.910/-, which should be offered to the petitioner, as petitioner has also undergone the same selection process which is not disputed.

31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabinaragan Mohdpdtrd (supra) at paragraphs Nos.8 and 9 of the judgment held as follows: "8. The appellant was appointed on July 12, l9a2 and has been working with the approval of t1-re authorities for almost 4 years with short is no approval by the educational authorities for the period subsequent breaks. The managing committee is still utilising his services though there is no approval by the educational authorities for the period subsequent grounds of inefhciency or misconduct. The case of the appellant is, thus, fully covered by Section 3 of the Validation Act. We are of the view that the High Court erred in denying the benelit of the Validation Act to the appcllalt on the ground that his initial appointment for 89 days was conditioned by the stipulation that he would continue until replaced by a candidate from the select [ist. The High Court read into the Act what was not there. In response to the notice issued in the special leavc petition the managing committee through its Secretar;r-cum-Head Master has stated that the appellant is still continuing to serve as Hindi Teacher in the school under the orders of the malaging committee. 9. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct the respondents to treat the appellant as the regularly appointed Hindi Teacher in the school with effect from July 12, 1982. The appellant shall be entitled to his salary, including the salary for summer vacations and other breaks which must be taken as non est, from the date of his regular appointment i.e. Juiy 12, 7982. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of salary and other emoluments due to Lhe appe+ant as a result of his -.,xt:*$ t l9 JAK .) It.P.No 956i of )01,1 .rt .,i'ri regularization within a period of 3 months from tod.ay.,,

32. The ground which has been put forth is talling strength of the school and dwindling of resources. It does nol come in the way of regularizing the services of petitioncr, for more than one reason, as opined supra.

33. The Apex Court in Vinod Kumar and. others u. tJnion of India and others2 held as follows: '5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of cmplol,rnent and the rights thcreof cannot l)c mercly determined by the initiBl terms of appointment when the actual course of emplol.ment has evolved signihc:mtly over time. The continuous sen ice of the appellants in the capacities of regular ernployees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme- specihc naturc o[ their initial engagement. Moreovcr, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseelt by a Departmental Promotiona_l Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without aly indication of the temporar5r nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, tnerits a reconsideration of their employment status.,, The Apex Court in Rajkaran Singh and others u. Union of India and other# held as follows: "31. As held in Vinod Kumar {supra), "the essence of employment and the nghts thereof calnot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when 2 lzouy e scc tzt 3 2024 SCC Online sc 2138 20 JAK, J W.P.No.9563 oI20l1 the actual course of employment has evolved sigrrifrcantly over time. "

32. This Court fully associates with this principle and finds it wholly applicable in the present case, especially in light of the administrative orders and Board proceedings referred to supra that have consisLently treated the appellants as equivalent to regular government employees The mere classifrcation of employees as 'temporary' or 'permanent' is not merely a matter of nomenclature but carries signifrcant legal implications, particularly in terms of service benefits ald protections. 33. In the present case, the tota-lity of circumstances indicates that despite their formal classifibation as temporary employees, the appellants' employment bears substantia-l hallmarks of regular govirnment service. The denial of pensionar5r benehts iolely on the basis of their temporary status, without duc consideration of these factors, appears to be an oversimpiification of thcir employment relationship wrtI- the government. This approach runs the risk of creating .1r.r of employecs who, despite serving the . government for decades in a manner indistinguishable irom regular employees, are deprived of the benefits and protections typicalty accorded to government servants'

35. The Apex Court in Jaggo os. union of India and Other# arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.5580 of 2024, while dealing with the issue of regularization of services of employees, who were engaged by Central Water Commission on part-tine, ad hoc terms, while setting aside the orders passed by High Court and Tribunal, granted relief to the appellants, at paragraph Nos.19, 20, 22,25 and 26, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: --*r"df&di t l I I .;,t:7:: .f 2l JAK, J IY ? No.9563 oI20t,1 "19. It is evident from the foregoing that the - brt also appellants' roles were not only indistlnguishable from those of regular employees. Therr sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable t^reatment and rr:gularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary tcrmination, arnounts to manifest injustice and must be rectihed. "."".rtiul

20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Deur (supra) does not intend to penaJize employees who have rendered long years of serwice fulfilling c,ngoing arrd necessar)' functions of the State or its instrumenf alities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries a_nd illegal appointmcnts that circumvcnt constitutional rcquirements. However, where appointments \^.erc r-rot illegal but possibly "irregular," ar-rd where employees had servJd continuously against the backdrop ol salctioned functions for a considerable pcriod, the need for a fair and humar-re resolution becomes paramount. prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherentll required on a regular basis can, over the time, tralsform *h"t *"" initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario dernanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kurnar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of Ind,ia & Ors., it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot bc used to deny regularization of sen,icc to arr employee whose appointment was termed "temporar_v', but has peiformcd thc same rluties as performed by the regular empJoyee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regulzrr employee. The reler,:rnt paras of this judgment have bccn reproduced below: "6. The application of the judgment in llmq. Deui (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely $,ith the facts at hand, given the specific circumstantr.s under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formatitics at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considirabl: period through continuous service. Their promotion was tased on a specihc notihcation for vacancies and a sultsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving *iitt.., tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in tlre case of Uma Devi (supra). ' 7. ^fhe judgement in the case t/ma Deur (supra) also distinguished betwccn "irregular,, and "illegal,, 4 2024 SCC Ont.ine sct 3826 22 JAK J W.P.No 9i6) of 201a appointments underscoring the importance of considering ciitain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made itlegally if they had Iollowed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present ca se... "

22. The pervasive misuse of temporar5r employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized, by lack of benehts, job s..u.ity, ald farr treatmenL. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, cntrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even gieater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment fractices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of i"-po.n y contracts, rt not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but a-lso sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions-, often face multificeted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasona-l needs, they have increasingly become a mechalism to evade long-term obligations owed Lo employees. These practices manifest in several ways: . Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged. for work that is essential, recurring, arrd integral to the functioning of al institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractua-1," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees' Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benehts that regula-r employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case' This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and ) I ':.:....,. t 23 JAK, J tr.P.No 956j of 20 ta subjects workers to a state of constant insecuril.y, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees olten find themseh,es excluded from opp6llunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They rcmain stagnant it-r their roles, creating a systemic disparity between thcm ald their regular counterparts, despite their contributions bcing equally signillcant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporaqr employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberatc effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular cmployment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied iundamental benehts such as pension, provident fund, healtl.r insuralce, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack ol' social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, rotirement. or unforeseen circumstances.

26. While the judgment rn (Ima Deui (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constituLional 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 betu,een "iilega1" ald "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who u.ere engaged in dull'sanctioned posts and had served contrnuously 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 clarms of employees, even in cases u.here their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment tn (Jtna Deur (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknou,ledgment of cases where regula.rtation is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectir.ely weaponizing it 24 JAK, J lr.P.No 9563 of 20lt against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades."

36. When queried, learned counsel for respondents has fairly submitted that minimum of time scale is being implemented in the school, teachers are being paid regular sataries. This Court is of the view that it is a fit and deservrng case where directions can be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on par with those of the teaching staff who have been appointed on various dates from 2008 to 2O2O by inviting applications.

37. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that for the post of PGT (Physics), one Mr. Manik Prabhu, who attended the interview in December, 1993, also stood at Sl.No.2 in the selection list and was appointed on regular basis as the candidate who hgured at Sl.No.1 for the post of P.G.T. Physics, did not join similar to Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari. The said averment in paragraph No.4 of the writ affidavit is not denied nor rebutted by respondents in their counter affidavit. It is a fact borne by record that the post of P.G.T. Physics arises out of the same advertisement issued in December,

1993. The case of petitioner also arises out of the same advertisement, appointment of Manik Prabhu is on identical terms, petitioner should have been extended the same benefit i.e., .::tta* 25 J|1tt J It' P No.9563 of 2A t4 . .:, appolntment on regular basis, but such an act is not for-th coming, which clearly is a violation of Articie 14 of constitution of India.

38. A feeble attempt is made to categorise that petitloner is not teaching staff and her services are lor administration purpose and the issuc .f regularization cannot be considered in her case. This contenLion is u,ithout any basis and is untenablt: under law. This Court has observed supra that petitioner,s offerr of appointment was totally on different set of terms and conditions, inspite of being selectcd through the same process as Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari whose offer of appointmenL was on different terms. This is a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constltution of lndia. In adclition to this, suf:lce Lo sta[e that teaching stafl Mr. Manik prabhu appointed as pGT (physics) staff was given a regular appointmenL, which reads to an inference that a differcnt 5-ardstick has been applied to the petitioner hcrein. The contention that petitioner is appointed on the administralion side of the school is based on sandy foundation and thr: same cannot be sustained in the light of the observations made supra. It is a clear case of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further a case of adopting of different yardsticks in offering appointment to Mrs. Annapurna Tiwf|land the peritioner herein. .,S.\ i I I i 1 I I ,t F I I I I 26 JAK, J W.P No.g563 of 20 t1

39. It is imperative that the rigours of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are no[ ignored in relation to matters concerning employment. Arbitrariness in employment goes to the very root of the fundamental right to equality. While no person can claim a fundamental right to appointment, it does not mean that the authorities can be allowed to act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The Constitution of India guarantees equal and fair treatment to each person. Employment process thus, must always be fair, transparent and impartial. Every citizen has a fundamental right to be treated fairly and impartially, which is an appendage of right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A violation of this guarantee is liable to judicial scrutiny.

40. In the year 1994, as per earlier W.P.No. 1 l77B of 2008, the strength of the school was more than 2O00. Two candidates, who appear for the same test, for same post, cannot be given offer of appointment(s) with such varying terms and conditions, offering one person the basic pay and other a consolidated pay, it is a clear case of the school authorities treating the petitioner and Mrs. Annapurna Tiwari by different yardsticks, thus attracting Article 14 of Constitution of India. On this ground too, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. j I ; I ! I I i i f i i ! I I I I 27 J,1K,.) tY.P.No.9563 af 2014

41. It is not disputed that petitioner has contirLued in the said post of Office Assistant for a period of 31 years liom thc date of initial ofler of appointment i.e., 22.O2.1994. It was broughL to the notice of this Court that the interest of resporident school be considered zrs the school's financial situation is in shambles. It was pointed out that the school was being run by the township educational r:ommittee as a welfare measure for benefit of children of cmployecs. That it is not in a position to bea: the burden of payment of amounts on account o[ regularizatior , if granted, as there is paucity of funds. This Court is not inclined to accede to the contentions raised, as the petitioner has put in 3 decades of servicc, other staff of the school are employed on a regular basis, recruitments have been taken up place from 2OO8 t:t 2O2O.

42. This Court is of the opinion that it is fit case Lo issue directions ro the respondents for regularizing he services of petitioner u,ithin a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is pertinent to take note that a constitution bcnch of the Hon'ble Apex Court tn Y.Mahaboob Shertff and Sons V. Mgsore State Transport Authoritg, Bangalore and. otherss at Paragraph No.1 t heid as follows: t eln t960 Suprerne Court 321 (FB) L 28 JAK, J W.P No.9563 o/)0t4 "11. The next question is what order should be passed in the circurnstances. This depends on the exigencies of each case, for this Court is not confined by the technical rules relating to issue of writs by the English Courts. In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [(1955) I SCR 250: (AIR 1954 SC 440), this Court observed as follows at p.256 (of SCR): (at p.443 of AIR): "The language used in Articles 32 and 226 of o:ur Constitution is very wide ald the powers of the Supreme Court as well as of all the High Courts in India extend to issuing of orders, writs or directions including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, maldamus, quo warranto, prohibition ald certiorari as may be considered necessary for enforcement of the fundamental rights ald in the case of the High Courts, for other purposes as well. In view of the express provision in our Constitution we need not now look back to the early history or the procedural technicalities of these writs in English law, nor feel oppressed by any difference or charge of opinion expressed in particular cases by trnglish Judges. We can make an order or issue a writ in the nature of cerliorari in al1 appropriate cases ard in appropriate manner, so long as we keep to the broad and fundamental principles that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of granting such writs in English law."

43. In The Comptroller dnd Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi dnd Aftother V. K.S.Jaganndthan and Anothefi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No.2O held as follows: "2O. There is thus no doubt that tl'e High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala hde or on irrelevant u AIR 1987 Supreme Court 537 (A Three Judgcs Bench) ' '.;; :<i*l 29 J,4 K, J B/.P.n'o 9563 o.f 2011 'i ": ignoring the considerations or by relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretiot, o. th" policy lor implementing which such discretion has becn conferled. In all such cases and in any other ht and propcr case a High Court cafl, in the exercrse of its jurisdir:tion under Article 226, issue ,a ,.r,rit of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pas^s orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawfut -..r.r"i of ih" discretron conferred upon the government o. , prbli" au thorrty, and in a proper case, in order to pievent injustir:e resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself pass an order or give dirictions which the governlrent or the public authority should havc passed or gr\/en had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretior.r "

14. In Hari Krishna Mand.ir Tntst V. State of Maharashtrq. a.nd OthersT, thc Hon,ble Supre me Court in paragraph Nos. 1OO and 101 held as follows: "100. Thc High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of t]ne Constitution of India. n,rt onlv h:rve thc power to issue a writ of maldamus or in thl nature of mandamus, but arc duty_bound to erercise such pov,-er, where the Government or a public authorily has failed to exercise or has wrongly extrcised discretirln conferred upon it by a statute, or"i.ule, or a pohcy decisioti of the Government or has exerciserl such discretion mJa frde, or on irrelevant consideration. 101. In a,ll such cases, the High Court must issue a writ c ompel pcrformarce in an appropriate and lawful marner o1 thc discrerion conferred upon the Government or a public authority." mar-rdamus and give directions to -

45. In vieu, of the law declared by the Hon,ble Apex Court in the decisions stated supra and in the facts and circumstances 01.the ' AIR 2020 Suprcme (]our13969 l!! 30 JAK, J W.P.N0.9563 oJ 2014 instant case, for treating the petitioner by a different yardstick, thereby violating Article 14 of Constitution of India, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered for reasons aforesaid.

46. Respondents are hereby directed to issue proceedings for regularization/absorption within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, all consequential benefits, allowances and post retirement benefits, as applicable to thc posl, and arrears, if any, shall be paid to thc petitioner, after her retirement.

47. For reasons aforesaid, Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed That Rule Nisi has madi"Absolute as above witness witnessrHEnr"i;?,:"f EIf,:Ii'#y;JJ:"'.:T""o"r'#bL::."'','n" //TRUE COPY// One fair coPY to THE Ho N'BLE ShRI JUSTICE AN (For His LordshiP's Kind Perusa S S - L. VIJAYA LAXMI TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER UMAR JUKANTI To, 1 ll,B3.X'[T31,"i"1$ile's#,PJ::,?'ii#'13]''"'iJAtrstiuticsLimited' o..silE .,fl I J

2. The General lVanager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, HAL Township, Balanagar, Hydera6ad Division, Hyderabad-42.

3. The Chairman, Aeronautics Township Educational Committee (ATEC), HAL High School, HAL Township, Balanagar, Hyderabad-42. I

4. The Secretary and Correspondent, Aeronautics- Town-ship Ed'lcatlol Committee (ATEC), HAL Secondary School, CBSE Affiliation Code No' 1630639 HAL Township, Balanagar, Hyderabad-42. .

5. 11LR Copies 6. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

7. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

8. One CC to Smt. K. Udaya Sri, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Smt. V. Uma Devi, SC[OPUC

10.Two CD Copies TJ w HIGH COURT DATED:2310612025 1 t ORDER WP.No.9563 of 2014 -'tt' ..a. .-;:. ,,, ,<,. 3 S I,i ra 2{ trP 2U5 .,:. . / o C.S r,.1a.' t ' r'r' .''. * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^2dJ GP"A k"