Writ Petition No. 45572 of 2016 · The High Court · 2025

Order

Petilioners approached this Court to declare the memo dated 19.ll.2OI4 and memo dated 17.O8.20 15 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench and to declare that they are cntitled for regularization / absorplion in tcrms of Writ Petition No. i8254 of 1989 and batch datcd 04.07.199 I and Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 2013 and Writ Appeat No. 1135 ot 2Ol4 dated O8.O8.2014 in the then existing vacancies and consequently to direct respondents to consider the case of petitioners for regularization / absorption from the date of initial appointment duly taking the total length of service

of petitioners from the date of first engagement together with all conscquential benerlts. '2. The case of petitioners is that petitioner No 1 was appointed as Junior Assistant h 1987 on daily wage basis, Petitioners 2 to 4 also joined in 1987 as Junior Assistant / T-vpist. While so, the 3'd respondent issued proceedings datcd

17.06.1991 proposing to retrench the workmen / employees in the respondent board. Pursuant thereto, some employees wcre retrenched. Challenging the said action, Writ Petition No 18254 1 I I =l - of 1989 camc ro be Illccl seeking regularization ol their services since vacancics Cxisted as on that date. This C rurt passcd a common or<lcr rlated 04.O7.1991 in Writ Petitiorr No.18254 of 1989 and batch directing responden[s to consid:r thr: case o[ pctitioners tlrerein fcrr regularization by taking into consideration t he lcngt h of service and also granl Lng re l:rxation and exceptions in cases of persons who harl worked lor sufficiently longcr period o[ fivc years or more The Hon'ble Court also obsr:rved that seniority should be maintained as per Section 2li(ll) ot tl're Ir'rdustrral Disputes Act (for s ror-t, 'the Act'. Aggricved bv the zrbscnce of positive directions Writ Appeal No.275 <t[ lc)92 u'as prelerrcd and the Division Br.nch disposed of thc sarnc orr 31.01 . 1996 directing respondenl s 1-o consider the e ligibi ity o[ 55 persons for regularization in ac:ordance with G.O.Ms.No.2l2 rlateri 22.O4.1994. However, rer,pondcnts for the reasons bcst knon,n, did not consider petitiorers, cases for regu lariza:iol'r. Thcir services were dispensr cl u.rth on

31.O8.1991. Allcr zr month, they u,ere again take I into service but with artrfrcier] breaks, clearly intended orrh' to evadc regularization. Pctitioncrs were continued till 31.12.1997 wiLh such artillcizrl lrreaks. Meanwhilc, respondents re gnlarized the serviccs <l1' I8 candidates. petitioners also submitted representations ftrr rcgul:rrization by considcrinl lhcir total .lo I t, t. - t lcngth of service under Section 25(B) of the Act and G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. Instead of accommodating petitioners, respondents deputed employees from Directorate of i Technical Education into posts of Senior Assistant I Superintendent in the Board. After their repatriation, Technical Board employees were promoted to those posts, yet petitioners' cases for absorption were ignored. Consequently, representations dated 06.1O.2OO8, 24.12.2OO4, O7.O7.2O11,

20.Oa.2}ll, 25.08.2011 and 08.O9.2011 were made. In reply, memo No.SBftrTlCl 1L155/2O11-DWtr dated 11.05.2012 was issued stating that the petitioners' request cannot be considered in view of pendency of WP No.2i772 of 2OOl hled by others and interim orders therein.

2.1. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.19401 ol 2072 seeking declaration that they were fully eligible and qualified to be absorbed and regularized as Junior Assistant / Typist in the respondcnt Board in terms of the judgment in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989 and Writ Appeal No.275 of 1992 dated

31.01.1996. This Court by order dated 12.08.2013 considered G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act and allowed the Writ Petition directing respondents to consider petitioners' cases in the existing vacancies or vacancies that may arise, relaxing the age limit in 4 view of long pendency. Insteacl of compliance, respondents hled Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 20 13 and petitioners IiL:d Writ Appeal No.1135 of 2Ol4 against adve rse observations. Both the Writ Appeals were disposed o[ b5, a common ju 1gment dated

08.O8.2O L4 with clear directions: (a) respondents shall take into account e ntire serwice rendered by pelitioners fron inception for benefit under G.O.Ms.No.212, (b) petitioners qu rlilying under G.O.Ms.No.212 shall be taken into service fortlru.ith u,ithout entitlement to back wages, and (c) petitioners rot qualifying shall be re-engaged under Section 25(H) as zrn I when work exists or given other bcnefits such as retrospecLive regularization.

2.2. Instead of following thc said directives, respondents issued mr:mo dated 19.11.2014 citing G.O.Ms..,1o.212 dated 22.O4.1994 and claiming petitioners had nor lLlfilled the prescribed conditions and decided to deny r:gularization, stating orLly re-engagement under Section 25(Hl. petitioners challenged the same by filing Contempt Case No. j9g2 of 2014. During its pendency, the said memo was place 1 before the Court and the contempt was closecl with observatio r that cogent reasons were not mentioned and respondents rtust furnish reasons within three weeks. In compliance, respon rlents issued memo daterd 77.Oa.2OlS showirrg the number of lavs workecl I. t. t ) and reitcrating that petitioners dicl not fullill conditions under G.O.Ms.No.212 as on cut off datc Consequently, beneht ol regularization was denied. Further memo dated 24.08.2015 was issued seeking willingness to u'ork and petitioners gave u,illingness on 28.05.2015. Hou'ever, no posting orders were issued. Petitioners contend that despite specific directions of the Division Bench to consider total length of service, respondents have not complied. Thus Contempt Case No' 1931 of 2015 was filed, u'hich was closed on 25.11.2016 with liberty to approach appropriate forum, hence the present writ Petition' Petitioners state that they were engaged in 1987 on

2.3. daily wage basis and worked continuously_ till 1997 with artificial breaks, theretry entitled under G.O.Ms'No'212, dated

22.04.1994 and Section 25(B) of the Act. They state that in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989 uide judgn;lent dated O4'O7 '1'997' some employees were regularized while petitioners were assured that vacancies arising would be fllled as per seniority list of

04.O7 .'lgg 1 . In 1997 , vacancies arose but their representations including the one dated 14.09.1999 were not considered One similarly-situated appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1 135 of 2014 was accommodated as Recorcl Assistant and the Higher Education Department was requested to furnish particulars of daily wage clerks regularized. The clarification by respondent dated i I 't 6 I

19.0i.20110 confirmed that length of service, not nan days, was considere d. Division Bench directives of 0B 08.2014 also mandate<:l considering total length of seruice. Pe titioners assert that contrary to this, proceedings dated 19.11.2014 and

17.08.20 15 u,ere issued wrongly stating that the,, did not fulfil conditions of G.O.Ms.No .212 as on cut-off datc 25. I I . 1993.

2.4. lt is stated that memo dated 10.12.1993 proves that pelitioners rvere in service on the cut off date, the r namcs being at Sl.Nos. 6, lO,20 and 07 respectively, hence Lhev fulfilled G.O-Ms.No.2l2. The order in Writ Petition No.19.01 ol 2012 aL para 6 also held that seasonal clerical / labour rvorkcrs are entitied to benefit under G.O.Ms.No,212. Thus, the impugned memos are contrary and illegal. Further, resyrondents' own counter :n Contempt Case No. 473 of lg9 1 idmitred that seniority was determined as per length of service ignoring smaller breaks and considering provisions of Sect on 25(B). Now denying the same is arbitrary and discriminato I. Petitioners point out that similarly-situated Smt- Usha Rani Receptionist, disengage d along with them, was regularized und.:r proceedings t. dated 04.r19.1996, while petitioners u,ere denied tt e same.

2.5. It is also stated, uide letter dated 19. L2O1O, State Board of Technical Educatron and Training and lommissioner of Techn:cal Education, Hyderabad highlighted tl'rc five-fold --*. - 7 6 increasc in Polytcchnics (from 56 to 3O4) and eightfold intake increase (8200 to 65,520) from 1984-85 to 2010-11, resulting in enormous workload, but sanctioned staff remained static' Accordingly, Government sanctione d additional posts uide G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 06.07 .2011 including Junior Assistant / Senior Assistant, but respondents undertook only promotions without filling Junior Assistant posts, thereby denying petitioners despite vacancies. It is further stated that after 1997, numerous vacancies arose due to promotions, retirement and death of Junior Asststants No recruitments were undertaken, yet petitioners' cases were not considered' Petitioners have been continuously hghting, but respondents denied regula rization on untenable grounds despite availability of vacancies, contrary to the orders passed in Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals mentioned above' In the afhdavit filed by the rispondents' it is stated' 3. the State Board of Technical Education and Training after December, 1gg7 , did not appoint Daily Wage Clerk for any of theclericalworksexceptreservedSC,sT,PH,Compassionate appointments and internal promotions Judgment of this Court, datcd O4-O7 1991 in Writ Petition No' ln terms of the 18254 of 1989 and batch, it is open for the Board to terminate the services of daily wage clcrks who we re not needed by paying 1 t 1 I 8 .- \I \ -a-- = -d ..1 '.1 them cornpensation, as per the Orders of the Hon'ble High t court- Accordingly, fil1ed the available vacancies rnd remaining daily witge clerks were retrenched, after 1;af ing the compensation. Petitioners have taken compensatron also. None o[ the juniors lo Petitioners in the seniority list of Daily wage clerks worked is appointed or regularized in the serwice in the State Bo.rrd of Technical Education and Training.

4. Petitioners in their reply state that Rt spondent No.3 sLated that afler December 1997 , recruitment wa; ntac]e only in the categories of SC, ST, PH, compassionatc app()intmcnts, and in[ernal promotions, and that no daily wag,r clerks were appointe<l thereafter. This explanation is not ac ccptable sincc respondents have not explained why posts belonl;ing to OC and BC categ,:ries were not hlled up. It is further subr-ritted that this stand of the respondent contradicts the positior rakcn by the same aul hority earlier before this Courl in v; rious memos, where it v!,as specifically represenled that tl Lt: se rvices of retrenchr:d daily wage clerks would be hlled ul, on a rcgular basis as and when vacancies arose, in terms of tirc judgme nt of tn'is Court dated O4.O7.1991 in Writ Petition No. 1 8254 ol 1 989 I and batr:h. Petitioners also submit that the-e are several vacancier; of .Junior Assistant and Typists in tee respondent Board, which fact has been admitted by Respor dents in their at' - .) I afhdavits filed in earlter proceedings lt is Lhcrefore requcsted that their services be regularizcd in the said vacancies of Junior Assistant and Typist posts, since Lhey r.t'ere engaged Iong back andhavebeenwaitingforabsorptionintermsofthcjudgment dated 04.07.1991. i I Petitioners further state that Respondent No'3 4.1. stated that their services were retrenched as per the judgment of this Court dated O4.O7.7ggl and compensation was paid' This is only a partial statement of the elfect of the judgment They state that respondent Boarcl itself, on several occasions' issued memos assuring that services o[ petitioners and other be regularized as per similarly-placed daily wage clerks the said judgment as and when vacancies arose' The Board had also prepared a seniority list of daily wage clerks lor this purpose. Petitioners state that having prepared such a seniority list and issued repeated memos to the eflect that regularization "r'ould wouldbedoneonthebasisofthesaidlist,iespondentsCannot now deny. regularization by only relying on the fact of retrenchment and compensation- Petitioners emphasize LhaL judgment of this Court dated 04 07 1991 did not merelv permit terminationwithcompensationbu|alsospecilrcallydirected consideration of regularization based on length of service and e--. seniority. I() - Y,l '..- i ,i I I I

4.2 I present stand of High C:ourt judgment Pctitioners further state that thr Respr>ndent No.3 is rnconsistent n ith its own earlier admissions and the assurances given before this Court '"hey contend that rcfusiLl to regularize their services despitc the cxistence of vacanlies and despite the assurance of th: respondents is arbitrury and contrary to law. Accordingly, petitioners state that there are existing vacancies of Junior Assistant and Typist posts, the respondents themselves had earl er admitted the obligat;on to regularize retrenched daily wage , rlcrks as per the dated 04.O2.t991, anc Lhat denial of regular.zation now on the sole ground of rc rcnchment and compensation is unsustainable. They therefor c, request this court t() direct respondents to regurarize their servrces in the existing vacancies of Jtrnior Assistant and Typ st posts in the respondr:nt Board in accordance with the said jurlgment and the seniority list prepared by the Board. 5. Hearcl petitioners - parties in pers c.rr-t and Sri S Rahul Re,ddy, learned Special Government pleadcr on behall of respondeets trnd perused the record. 6. Court by or<ler dated 04.OT.7gg1in Writ petition No 1989 and barch, A perusal of the material on record i8254 of directed consideration of regr larization for the basis of length of service z nd inclicated srlows that this these entitled on -.--=--*.__. that relaxation and exceptions might be given to persons who had lvorked for appreciabte periods The Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 275 of 1992 and the later Division Bench order dated O8.O8.2014 in Writ Appeals No'1795 ol 2O13 and 1 135 of 2Ol4 have given precise directions regarding consideration of theentireservicerenderedfrominceptionforthcpurposeso[ G.O.Ms.No.212 and have stipulated the consequences for lhose rvho qualify and those who do not' Those are the authoritative directions against which the Board was obliged to act' The Board's own contemporaneous record 7. materially supports petitioners' claim that they were in service on the relevant cut-off date' Memo dated 10 12'1993' on which petitioners rely, lists them at Sl'Nos 6, lO' 20 and 07 and period 18.11.1993 to directsattendanceforseasonalclerical/labourworkfor|he B.l2.lgg3. Writ Petition No 19401 of such seasonal engagements amount to on 25. 11.1993 for the PurPoses of 2Ol2 accePted that being in service as G.O.Ms.No.2l2.Onthefaceoftheserecords'petitionerswere shown by the Board itself to have been in service as on thc cut off date. The Board's subsequent reliance on the cut-off date and on purported non-fulfilment of G O Ms'No 212 conditions in Memo dated lg.ll.2ol4 ancl Memo dated 1 7 O8 2015 is I { I I Yll thereforc. inconsislent rr.'ith the Board's ou'n earl er cntries and communic:ttio ns.

8. Ir is also of significance that the Divis ion Bench has t. repcateclh' rcquircd the Board to take into acc(un[ the entire service rendcred from inception for the purposl of extending benefit under G.O.Ms.No.2l2 arrd directed that those who quatify, tre:rbsorbed lorthwith (without back wag:s) while those u,ho do not qualif-v be re-engaged under Sectior 25(H) as and l,",hcn vlork crists. The memos rclied upon by the Board which conclude Lhat pclitioners did not fulfil the conditlons prescribed under G O.Ms.No.212 are therefore, in direct telsion u'ith the earlier judicial directives which contemplated a svmpalhetic and substantive consideration of total service rnd seniority. Contempt Casc No. 1982 of 2O 14 was ciosed only after the Board q'as directed to lurnish cogent reasons ard were given a period ol three neeks; the record demonstrates Lhat the Board thereafter issued thc impugned Memo dated 17.18.2O15 which continued to record ineligibility on the basis of rlan days/ cul off computatrons. The manner in which the Boarrl has oscillated bctwccn reprcsentations that regularizatton u,orrld be effected and later taking a contrary stand on technical grrunds, without demonstrating a proper, transparent and consistcnt application of criteria or cxplair-ring why the petitioners - u'hose narnes -..-- I I - l3 appear ir-r the Board's own list of December 1993 - should be excluded, discloses arbitrariness and lack of bona ftcle compliance with the directions of this Court and r.r'ith the Boa rd's ou'n prior communicalions.

9. Respondents'contentionthatretrenchmentfollor'.'ed b1, paymcnt of compensation precludes any further claim needs to be examined in the light of the judicial directions. The orders dated O4.07.199 1, 31.01.1996 and 08.08.2014 would show that the remedial mandate in this matter was noL simply lo permit retrenchment by payment of compensation; the litigation that continucd and the subsequent orders were directed to ensure that pcrsons who qualihed as per G.O.Ms.No.?, 12 and who had rcquisitc length of service were considered for absorption/ regularization. The Board's payment o[ compensation at an earlier stage, without there being any final adjudication extinguishing the right to be considered for rcgularization cannot be permitted to be used by the Board as a dcvice [o frustrate the substantive rights which the petitioners assert on the basis of total service, seniority list and the clear directions of this Court. Petitioners' reliance on mcmo dated l).12.lgg3 and the observations in Writ Pe tition No 194O I of 2O).2 arc matcrial and cannot be brushed aside blr technical computations or selective treatment. I t 'I -i- I,+ I I

10. Rcspondenls assert that after Decerrber, 1997, no daily u,age clcrks u'cre appointcd except in the ca iegones of SC, ST, PH, crompassiotraLe appointments and internrl promotions; they also assert that none of the juniors to p( titioners were regularizt:d. Petitioners, on the other hand, allegc lhat vacancies of Junio: Assistant and Typist posts existed (a fact which respondents had admitted in various afhdavits) arrd that despite such vacancies. the lfoarcl did not consider tleir cases and instead, :illecl posts b1- deputation and promotior r u'hile leaving petitioners out. The rccord exhibits a pattern 'rf inconsistent bv thc Board. Specifi: instances of actions zLncl explan:rtions differential treatmen t - notably regularization of Smt. Usha Rani by proccedings dated 04.09.1996 fu -ther make it necessarF for this Court to rnsist upon a fair, non- discrimirratory- and judgment consonant appliration of the criteria laid clou'n in the orders of this I lourt and in G.O.Ms.l'1o.2 1 2 dated 22.O4. 1994.

11. From the above discussion, it is to le understood, petitioners werc in selwice as on the cut-off date 25.1 1.1993 as evidenccl by the Board's own communication da ed 10.1'2.1993 and as obscrved in Writ Petition No.194O1 ol 2O12. That factual posilion cannot be negatived by subsequellt self-serving computatbns by the Bozrrd rvhich are not stlpported by l5 contemporaneous records. Secondly, the Division Bench's directions dated 08.08.2014 in Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 20 13 and 1135 of 2Ol4 require that the entire service from inception bc taken into account and lhat those who qualify under G.O.Ms.No.212 be taken into service forthwith (withour back wages), while those not qualifying be re engaged under Section 25(H) as and when work exists or be given other benelits. The impugned memos dated i9.17.2Ol4 and 17.08.2015 issued by the Board are inconsistent with these directions insofar as they dcclinc to consider petitioners for regularization in the light of the Board's own earlier positions and the judicial directives. Thirdly, thc Board's contention that retrenchment with compcnsation having been effected in the early 1990s extinguishes any entitlements must yield to the subsequent judicial directions which expressly contemplated consideration for regularization based upon length of service and seniority. The mere acceptance of compensation in the earlier phase cannot be converted into a bar where later directions require fresh consideration and where the Board itself had repeatedly held out the prospect of reguiarization. Fourthly, the Board's assertion that no j uniors were regularized is not a sufhcient ansl4/e r petitioners' claim of selective action and discrimination, especially as the record contains instances of t I 16 .-\': *'1 regularization of certain persons and admrsrions in prior affidavits and memos that vacancies exist and that regularization rvould be ellected as and rvhen vaci rncles arose t2 For thesc reasons supra, lhis Court js satished that the impugned Memo dated 19.1 1.2O 14 and Memo dated

17.O8.2O15 cannot be allowed to stand- The Boa'd is obliged to implement the directions of this Court and to appiy in good faith and in a transparcnt manr-Ler Lhe criteria mentroned in G.O.Ms.No.2l2 dated 22.O4.1994 and in the orclers of this Court, irLclu<ling the Division Bench order datt d O8.08.2014. Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient material r.l,arranting issuance ol lhc urits sought for lrom this Court.

13. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowe I setting aside therefore, directed to regularise / absorb petitiorrers from their date of ttrerr initial appointment as per the order n Writ Petition No. 182ii4 of 1989 and directives (a) and (b) ssued in Writ Appeal Nos. 1795 of 20 13 and 1135 of 2Ol4 arrd clarification given by the Board dated 19,01.2O0O, duly taking into account the total length of scrvicc of pctitioncr from tle date of fifst engagcment Logether with all lhe consequential benefits. No I t. I - l7 l4 Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed- That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness Tne non'biJ sRl APA;iESi li0Man slNc+l, Tle chief Justice on this-- rnrr.a-"v,itr" i-ighteen*t iav'oi ieptetu"r, Two Thousand and Twenty Five' . PONNA KRISHNA DI s TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Principal Secretary to Government, Highe Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana' ECTION OFFICER ducation DePartment,

2. The Chairman, State Board of Technical Education & Training' (SBTET)' ' ii;";f i;i;;'s#, ztn-Fiooi aRKi Covernment offices Building, Lower 3. The Secretary, State Board of Technic.al Education & Training, (SBTET), " sili"-Jii"rri,'srn", zth"Fiooi aRKR Government offices Building, Lower Tank Bund, HYderabad. Tank Bund, HYderabad.

4. One CC to SRI B.RAMA PULLA REDDY [PARTY-IN-PERSON] 5. One CC to SRI K.VISHNU VARDHAN [PARTY-IN-PERSON] 6. One CC to SRI T.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY [PARTY-IN-PERSON] 7. One CC to SRI M.V.RAIVIANA [PARTY-IN-PERSON] S.TwoCCstoSRlS.RAHULREDDY,SPL.GP,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] g.TwoCCstoGPFoRH|GHEREDUCATIoN,HighCourtfortheStateof - Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] '10.Two CD CoPies BSR BS W HIGH COURT DATED: 1810912025 Ei"ttl ,-.\ (-) 2q iEF 2ffi z. L-)\ -! _-',t. ORDER WP.No.45572 of 2016 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1A