Writ Petition No. 6552 of 2023 · The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K. RAMA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MS. M. SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT 2 THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.416 of 2025 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice SuioA Paul): Sri K. Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellart/ u'rit petitioner and Ms. M. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il, for the respondents 2 With the consent, fina11y heard.

3. This lntra-court appeal takes exception to the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6552 of 2023 whereby, the writ petition \\ras dismissed. 1 Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the appellant's narne was forwarded by the employment excharge and he was appointed in the Department on

05.09.1986. Thereafter, the appellant worked continuously with the Department. W.P.No.6552 of 2023 was filed by the appellant seeking his regularization/ absorption. The said vl.rit petition was dismissed by learned Single: Judge by holding that the governing G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.O4.1994 3 clearly mentions that absorption shall be against a clear vacancy available at the time ol appointment. Learned Single Judge opined that in the instant case, the appellant was not 'appointed against a sanctioned f vacant post' and he was appointed on temporary basis. The appellant has attained the age of 58 years as on the date of filing of the writ petition. Apart from that, since the appellant is enjoying the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.S1 dated l4.lO-2O19, he is not entitled for any relief. l,earned counsel for the appellant submits that no 5. doubt the goveming order is G.O.Ms.No.212 and it prescribes six conditions which need to be fulfilled by an employee who has worked for a minimum period of Iive years and continuing as on 25.11.1993, the singular point on which the appellant was non-suited is condition No.5 which deals with the availabilitY of clear vacancy on the date of regularization/ absorption and not on the date of his initial appointment. Learned Single Judge has erroneously interpreted condition No.5 of said G.O-Ms.No.212 and rejected the writ petition. Merely because the appellant approached the Court after several years, in a case of regularization, it is not an impediment for hrm' More he 4 worked, more his right of consideration is ripened. The singular reason for rejection of the writ petition is bad in law. The gralt of benefit under G.O'Ms.No.Sl was also not an impediment for the purpose of considering the appellant for regularization/ absorption. He placed reliance on Annexue-P8 to submit that there existed a vacancy which is evident by a certificate issued by Mandal Panchayat Officer on 29.10.2019. This document has escaped notice of learned Single Judge which shows that on the date of absorption there existed a vacancy.

6. Sounding a contra note, learned Government Pieader for Services-Il, supported the impugned order ald fairly submitted that the G,O.Ms.No.212 is the governing G.O. which prescribes the conditions upon fulfillment ol which an employee can get the right of consideration for regularization/ absorption. It is strenuously contended that on the date the appellant was appointed, he was not appointed against aly clear and vacant post. Thus, learned Single Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the writ petition, more so, when the appellant is admittedly getting the benelit of enhancement of remuneration as per I I I G.O.Ms.No.S1 and approached the Court at the fag end of his career. 7 Learned counsel for the parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. B We have bestowed our alxious consideratiotr on rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

9. Before dealing with rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to note that learned Government Pleader for Services-ll has not disputed the fact that the appellant was appointed in the year 1986 and his narne was sponsored by the employment exchange. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No .212 on which both the parties placed heavy reliance reads thus: "...Government accordingly decided that the services of such person who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years and are continuing on 25. i i.1993 be regularized by the appointing authorities subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:

1. The persons aPPointed should possess the qualification prescribed as per rules in force as on the date from which his/her services have to be regularized. I I I f' I 6

2. They should be within the age limits as on the date of appointment as N M / Daily wage employee.

3. The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and back-log n ill be set-ofl against future vacancies.

1. Sponsoring of candidates from Employment Exchange is relaxeil.

5. Absorption shall be asainst clear vacancies of sts considered necessary to be continued as per work load excluding the vacancies already notified to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission/ District Selection Committee.

6. In the case of Work charged trstablished, where there will be no clear vacancies, because of the fact that the expenditure on Work-charged is as [-xed percentage of P.S. Charges and as soon as the work is over, the services of t'orkcharged establishment will have to be terminated, they shall be adjusted rn the other departments. District Offices provided there are clear vacancies of Last Grade Service. (Emphasis Supplied) It is also not in dispute that as on 25.11.1993, the appellant had already worked for more than five years. The only condition on which the appellant's case was tested arrd rejected was condition No.S above. A careful reading of condition No.S shows that at the time of absorption, there must exist a clear vaczrncy. In other words, condition No.S does not stipulate that at the time of initial appointment, ./ I l there should be a clear ald vacant post. Thus, learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has not correctly interpreted the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.212 and considered it as if it prescribes that a vacant post should be there at the time of appointment against which employee had been appointed. The appellant has worked with the Department from the year

1986. If the appellant's services were not actually required, there was no occasion for the Department to continue him for decades together. The appellant completed more than 34 years of service with the Department

10. The Supreme Court, after considering its Constitution Bench judgment 1n Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevir in Narendra Kumar Tiwari v State of Jharkhand2 opined as under:

7. ...The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision it Umodevi (3) lState of Karnatako v. Unqdeui (3), 12o,0,61 4 SCC L : 20o6 SCC {L&Sl 7531 is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appoiutments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by ptacing the sword of Damocles ' zooo 1a; scc I ' (zora) g scc z:a \ I 8 over their head. This is precisely what Umad.evi (3) lstate of Karnataka v. Umadeut /3r, (20061 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 7531 and Kesari[State oJ Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2O1Ol 9 SCC 247 : l20l0l 2 SCC (L&S) 8261 sought to avoid." (Emphasis Suppiied) 1 1. Further, while considering the judgment of Umadevi (supra) in Jaggo v. Union of India3, the Supreme Court opined as under "20. It is well established that the decision io, Uma Deui (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of sersice fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrurnentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned fuactions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a reccnt judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of Inciia', it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee... 2 1 .. . Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment : continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, ' ntn zozs sc z9e 9 and absence of any mala Jide ot illegalities in their appointments. In that-light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 22 to 25.. 26. While the judgment it Uma Deuf (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often aisinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This _judgmcnt aimed to distinguish between "iilegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that cmployees in irregular appointments, who \{.cre cngagcd in duly sanctioned posts ald had servcd continuousl_y for more than tcn ycars, should be considcred for rcgularization as a one-time measllre. However, the laudable intent of the _iudgment is being subverted u.hen institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately re.iect 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 judgment in Umo Deur (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit overlooking acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades." (Emphasis Supplied)

12. In view of ratio of above judgments of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the appellant cannot be denied benefit of absorption /regiarization on the basis of 'surface label' of 'temporar5r/casual employee'. The Supreme Court deprecated this practice in the case of Jaggo (supra). The 10 appellant has rendered 34 years of service and he is not a backdoor entrant. Even after the judgment of Umadevi (supra), the respondents continued and extracted work from the appellar.rt. If the appellant is denied regularization after rendering 34 years of service, it will be miscarriage of justice.

13. In the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra), the Supreme Court opined that such continuance of employees for decades under the garb of trregular appointment, amounts to 'exploitation'. Thus, we are inclined to grant the relief to the appellant.

14. Apart from this, learned Single Judge has not considered the document (Annexurer_pg) which is a certifrcate and in colurnn 12 of which it is mentioned that a post is vacant and sanctioned. In the counter, the respondents have not dealt with this certificate issued by the Mandal Panchayat Officer. The petitioner was not a back door entrant. His narne was sponsored by employment exchange.

15. We have also perused G.O.Ms.No.Sl which deals with enhancement of remuneration. This G.O.Ms. cannot be an impediment for consideration of an employee for 11 regularization/absorption if he satis{ies the conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.2 I 2. I

16. In the instant case, the appellant had completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993. It is not the case ol the Department that the appellant does not possess the requisite educational qualification. The appellant was not within the age limit at the time of his appointment is also not the case of the Department. The Department has not raised objection about violation of Rule of reservation. The appellant's name \\'as admittedly sponsored by the employment exchange. However, condition No.4 ol G.O.Ms.No.212 relaxes such requirement. Condition No.5 is satisfied by the appellant by Iiling a document (Annexure-P8) u,hich talks about avaiiability of the vacancy. Thus, examining the case of the appellant on the anvil of governing G.O.Ms.No.212, in our opinion, the appellant has fulfilled essential requirements of the said G.O. for the purpose of absorption

17. Accordingly, the order of learned Single Judge dated 1,9.02.2025 is set aside and the r,r,rit petition stards allowed. The respondents are directed to consider ald I I L2 regula-rize the services of the appeltant within 60 days and pass an appropriate order in this regaril.

18. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO .'. JbINT REGISTRAR 1 one fair copv to THE HON'BLE THE AcflNG cHtEF JUST|Ch SU.TOV pAUr_ (For His Lordship's Kind perusal)\ | AND One fair copy to THE HON,BLE SMT JUSTTCE RENUKA YARA (For SMT. Lordship,s Kind perusat) sEcTtoN oFFiCER r I Nizamabad. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 1 I!:.1,1'l_"leal Secretary, State of Tetangana, panchayath Raj and Rurat ^ uevetopment Llepartment, secretariat, Hyderabad z. I he Commissioner, panchayath Raj and Rural Development Department, 3. The District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. 4. I ne utvtstonal panchayat Officer, Armoor, Nizamabad. 5. The Mandar panchayaih offiat, M;il;i piiia iri[nio Vaitpoor Mandat, 9. Tfg +egutive Officer, Grampanchayath Mothe, Vaitpoor, Nizamabad. 7. 11 L.R. Copies. t' 9 The Secretarv. Tetanqana Advocates Association Library, High court 10. One CC to Sri K. Rama Subba Rao, Advocate tOpUCI 11.Two CCs to GP for Services lt, High Court for tfiJ StaG of Tetangana, at 12.Two CD Copies lx3X:n*t;-Iretary, Buildings, Hydilrabad Hyderabad [OUT] union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company I To, TJ LS HIGH COURT DATED:1610412025 JUDGMENT WA.No.416 of 2025 F,N'!rt * ?i o^$ ,'i'l c I ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS lqn ){