M.Caroline Madhuri v. State of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.14515 of 2O19 ORDER: The case of petitioner, and her grievance, as can be culled out from the writ affidavit is that she was appointed as a School Assistant in the year 1996 in Zrlla Parishad High School, Shameerpet, Rarrga Reddy District. Following the Presidential Order, 1975, and G.O.Ms.No.184, dated 18.L2.2OO7, the petitioner and several others were repatriated to their respective local cadres, thereby the petitioner was repatriated to Hyderabad District in June 2OLl, and was posted to Government Boys High School, Bollarum, Trimulgherry Mandal' It is her grievance that though she was appointed in the year 1996 and her seniorit5r had to be reckoned from 1996, she has been shown as a 'deputationist' to Hyderabad in the repatriation process, thereby she was not considered for promotion while her juniors were promoted as Headmasters ahead of her in Hyderabad' 2. Heard Mr. J.R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Services-I' Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, contends that the I 2 petitioner €md )thers submitted representations seel<illg inclusion in the sen orit,z list, which were referred to a Conrrrrission. The Commissio n c bserved that the government 's or,r,r circulars, including Cir,:ular Memo No. 9543/MC/2OO7 7 explicitly required ttrat repatriated employees be absorl;ed in r;ubstantive posts, w-ith sulfernumerary posts created if nr:cessar,z, and that their seniority be determined under Rule 33 of the lr.F,. State and Subordinate fiervice Rules. The Commission directed the respondents to t,ake appropriate action to address the grievances of the repatriaterd employees within three months. De spite these directions, the respondents have failed to absorb the pretifj6lsl i. a substantive :ost or recognize her seniority from I g.ll.1996. Learned corrnsel contends that the respondents' inaction violates G.O.Ms.No.184 which provides for the creation of supt'rnumerarlr posts and the protection of seniority for repatriated enrployees. It is a-lso con tend ed that sanctioned posts in the cadrt, of School Assistalt (llnglish) exist in schools within H.yderaberd District, including (iati Government High School, Banj ara Hills, and Governmenr- High School, Film Nagar, which cc,uld zrc<.;ommodate her service:s. l,earned counsel asserts that her continued classilicatio e as a deputationist since 201 1 is impermissible un(er the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1g4 a,d thr: directions of the I \ \ \ 'E : I l I I-l !t } lI J Commission. It is contended that the respondents' failure to absorb her in a substantive post, along with their refusal to include her in the seniority list and consider her for promotion, is discriminatory, arbitrary, and in violation of her rights. The petitioner seeks relief in the form of absorption into a substantive post within Hyderabad District, recognition of her seniorit5r from her initial appointment on 79-lL-I996, ald consideration for promotion to the post of Head Master based on her rightful seniority

4. The sum and substance of the contentions of the learned Government Pleader, insofar as touching the material contentions of the petitioner, is that prior to provinciahzation of services, the teaching and non-teaching staff of t!: e Zllla Parishad and Mandal Parishad schools were governed by the Panchayat Raj and Zilla Parishad Act, 1959, and were not classified as government servants; and therefore the petitioner's claim of seniority, absorption into government service, ald promotion require examination within the framework of service unification and the applicable rules. It is contended that though G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 20.03.1981 extended government service rules, and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.5O5, dated

16.1 1.1998, and i i 4 G.O.Ms.No.ll38, dated 20.II.1998, sought to unify- the teaching staff of Zil1a Perishad and local Body schools nith g overnment school teachers these G.O's were struck down by thi:; Court as they were lackir: g Presidential approval, arld the issue i,; currently pending befrrre tire Hon'ble Supreme Court fbllou. irlg a status quo order. It is therefore contended that due to the pendency of unification pro<:eedings, the petitioner's service and seniority cannot be integrated with the government service cadre. and until unification is finalized and Presidential approvrrt is grrmted, the petitioner r:mains under the administrative cont.ro I of Z\lla Parishad authorities ald calnot claim automatic absorption or seniority benefit.s; in government service. With respr:ct to the petitioner's deprrtation to a government school in I Iyderabad District, it is contended that there are no Zilla parisha.d schools in Hyderabad .Jist."r ct, as the ten Zllla parishacL sch oc,ls in the cantonment area were converted to gover.nment schools. Consequentl'y, s taff working in those schools, inch.Lding the petitioner, 'n.r:re trrlaced on deputation or supernujirrerary posts due to the lack of srrbstantive vacalcies. The respondents maintain that the petitioner's current status as a deputationist precludes her from cl:rimi n g pror.notion to the post of Head lv{aster in governmqnt' schools. Learned GP highlight th e staLturtory. and I I \ \ 5 procedural limitations, including compliance with G. O.Ms.No.6 10 and ttre Presidential Order, which mandate the repatriation of non-locals to their respective local cadres. The Petitioner, being repatriated from Ranga Reddy District to Hyderabad District, has been accommodated on a supernumerary pbst to ensure her continued service pending the resolution of service unification. It is further contended that the Petitioner's claims for regularization, seniority, and promotion are premature and untenable in the light of the pending adjudication of unification issues by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is contended that the Government has acted in compliance with existing Rules and judicial directives, maintaining the stafus quo to avoid lega1 complications arising from premature absorption or promotion decisions. The Respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition, contending that the Petitioner's grievances cannot be redressed until the unihcation of services is finalized and Presidential approval is obtained. They emphasize that the Petitioner's claims of entitlement to seniority and promotion are contingent upon the outcome of the pending Supreme Court proceedings and unihcation measures. 6 t;

5. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner inter alia contending that the issue regarding merger o1- Govertrment and Panchayat Raj teachers was still under litrgation when the Government de:ided to repatriate employees. It is also contended that Gover.ement Circular Memo No. 9543/lMCl2O{t7-7 dated 2|.06.2007 stipulates creation of supernumerary pt:,sts in the absence of clea r vacancies; despite this, the petition::r was not posted irr a srupernumera{/ position upon repatriation, but instead w-orked on deputation in a regular vacancy. Th,: petitioner argues that star.r-rs-quo orders, if any, do not affect h.er promotion and that the r r'spondents could have promored hLer in Ranga Reddy Dist:ict w.hile continuing her deputation. The refore, the Petitioner l eque sts that the Respondents absorb l Ler into a regular post an<l consider her promotion, 6 . Having con sidered the respective submissions arrd perused the record, it rr a-y be noted that the petitioner u,as al:pointed in Zilla Parishzrd School, Ralga Reddy District, ho',vever'. (,onsequent to the Presidential Order, 1975, and G.O.Ms.No.l84, dated

14.12.2007 , sht: was repatriated to Government Bovs School in I IfYderabad District. It is to be noted that reptrtriatiorL connotes sending back to the parent cadre, and is not a tempora.ry trarsfer 7 whereby the petitioner's cadre/ service particulars are still maintained by the previous authorities, and it is distinctively different from a deputation where a person's cadre/ service/ seniority is still maintained by the parent department, and only the employee physically is sent to serve in a different office/location due to exigency of services in the borrowing department. 7 . In the instant case, owing to the repatriation of employees to their local cadres, the petitioner stood posted to Hyderabad region in a Government School, thereby the petitioner's parent cadre is determined to be Hyderabad region. When the petitioner stood repatriated, the respondents deeming her to be a deputationist and not extending the benefits of seniority and consequential service benefits is an erroneous presumption. Furthermore, the G.O.Ms.No.184 clearly stipulates that the service and seniority of the repatriated employees would be protected upon repatriation. Furthermore, it is not the case of respondents that the petitioner was posted to a Zllla Parishad School in Hyderabad ald thereafter those schools were apparently converted into Government Schools, which gave rise to the issues of unification of service. It is the specific unre butted cpntention of the petitioner that she has J-* ! I $I i J i r 8 been poste C to Government Boys School agains;t a regular vacancy, and the GOMs.No.l84 stipulated seniorilry protection and therefo re there ought not to have been atry irrrpr,:diment in absorbing in thirt vacancy itself. Even as per the G. O.l'ds.No.184, supernumerar\'' posts should be created to accontnrodate the repatriated r:mployees. Further, even as per the courrt€.r affidavit, the ten Zilla Parishad Schools were converte,l to Grtvernment Schools and the iocal body staff was tralsferretl to I?anga Reddy District, but su<:h tralsferred staff were continu ing in .:Jyderabad based on status quo orders of the Court. Be tlLat as; ir- may, the petitioner u.ho ,.vas repatriated and entitled to terrns under GOMs.No.l€;4 r.r ith regard to protection of senLority and service benefits, canno - be put to disadvantage, mc,re so when the GOMs.No.18,4 permits creation of supernumerzuy posr,s. In any event, the pr:titic,ner who was recruited io 1996:rnd repir.triated to a Government School in 2Oll, calnot be dernied the seniority/ service benefits after rendering almost three rlecades of service. In 1.hat view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstanc,:s of the present case, this Court Iinds for:ce in the prayer of the pet tioner. ( t 9

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, declaring that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been absorbed in the repatriated vacarcy in Hyderabad region, with protection of seniority from 19. 1 1.1996 onwards, with all consequential service benefits, including promotion. No costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4,, sEcfloI/6 FFICER

1. The Secretary, School Education Department. Telangana State Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad 2 The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Abids, Gun fgundry, Hyderabad. T o, I ,

3. The District EducationaI Officer, Hyderabad District, Hyderahad. 4. One CC to SRI J.R.MANOHAB RAO, A{vocate [OPUCI 5 Trilo_CCs to GP FOR SERVIQES I, High Court for the State of Telangana.

6. Two CD Copies. BSK BS HIGH GOIJRT DATED:0810412025 CC TODAY ,5(4 (, 9_s * .\.\c .a a1 r:1', ORDER \ \ :l t, al )-'' WP.No.14515 of 2019 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {