The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.17117 of 2020 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Articlc 226 of the Constitution of India, is filcd seeking the following relicf: ".-.to issue, a Writ, Order or Ordcls more particularly onc irr thc nature of Writ of Mandarnus directing thc respondents to regularise the service of petitioner in the post o[ Attcndcr or any Class-tV category posr b,\, strictlv tollo\\,ing the judgmcnts of llon'ble Apex Court i.e., Statc of Karnataka vs Urna I)cvi (2O06)l SCC pagel and State Io[ Karnaraka Vs ML Kosari (2010) 9 SCC 247 and the judgmcnt of rhc Division Bcnch oI this Ilon,ble Court dated 19.09.20 l7 inW.P.No.2'/217 ot 20l'l wirh all consequentjal bcnefits b,y setting asidc thc impugncd procecding Rc.No.871/U3/2019 datcd 2a 2-2O2O issued bv the 1., .espondent b1' holding that action of the respor]dcnts in not rcgLllarising the petitioncr services to thc post o[ Attcnder and indefinitely continuing the petitioner as part time swecpcr is illegzrl, arbitra4, discri minatorl', unconstil u tional and violativc oI Articlc l4 & 16 of Constitution of India and pass..."

2. Hcard Sri Ch. Jagannatha llao, lcarned counscl appcaring for the petitioner and learncd Government plcader for Senrices_I, appearing on bchalf of the rcspondcnts.

3. Learned counsel for thc petitioner submitted thaL the petitioner was appointed as a part-Lime Su.ccper in the cxisling vacancy availablc in the office of the l).puLY Inspcctor of Schools, Huzurabad (East) with a consolidated paymcnt of Rs.75/_ per month vide I , l: i; i I I I i I t I , 2 PK, J W.P. No.17l I 7 of 202A proceedings dated 21..12.1984 issued by the thcn rcspondcnt No.1, and was later posLed in the neu,ly sanctioned post in the office o[ the Dcputy Educational Officer, Huzurabad, vidc procccdings dated

24.08.1991. While so, the then respondent No. 1 issuecl proceedings Rc.No.L485/il2/97 daLed 19.11.1998, absorbing the petitioner on regular basis and posted him at Governrncnt high School, Dhangarwadi. I(arimnagar. I'loqrever, aftcr almost six months ol ihc petilioner joining thc post of Attender, the then respondent No.1 has issucd procccdings lRc.No.1485lF2 197 dated 'l 0.O5.1999, rcverting the pctitioncr as a part-time contingent employee, on Lhe ground that he rvas erroneously absorbed as a Class-lv emplol,ss, as against the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997. As such. thc petitioner rvas compcllcd to filc O.A.No.271 1 ot I 999 belore Lhe erstrvhilc Andhra Pradesh Administrative 'I'ribunal, u.herein, initiall1,, on 19.O5. 19'19, slatus quo ordcrs were granted, ancl eventuallJr, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the O.A. vlde ordor dated 27.O4.2OO1, directing thc respondcnts to regularize the service of the applicants, rvho fulltll the conditions stipulaled in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated

22.O4.1994 irlrd (i.O.Ms.No. 112 dated 23.07 .1997 , irrcspcctive of the fact that they have completcd five or ten years of scrvice as on

25.11.1993, provided, they r,r,ere in service as on thc cut-olf date, that i, PK, J w.P.No.17117 of 2O2O too, \^,ilhout insisting for the availability of a clcar vacancy. However, assailing the said judgment, the Government has hled W.P.No.5032 of 2002 beforc this Court arrd obtaincd a stay of the 'l'ribunal's order vicit ordcr dated 2 1.O3.2OO2. 'lhcrealtcr, viclc proccedings dated

03.01.2004, rcspondcnt No.1 pcrmittcd thc petitioncr to join duty as part time sweeper in the oflice of the Deputy trducational OflLcer, Huzurabad.

4. lt w.ls furthor subrritted that rl]e aforr:said writ pctition filcd by the (]overnmcnt vidc W.P.No.5O32 of 20O2 u'as subscquenLly disposed of vide ordcr dated 2O.O8.2009, once again, directing to considcr the casc of the petitioncr and othcr employec for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.O4.1994 or G.O.(P).No.112 dated

23.O7.1997, as the case may be. Thereaftcr, as per thc instructions ol respondent No.2 dated 20.O7.2OlO, respondent No. t had directcd the conccrncd Mandal trducational Olficcr vidc procecdings dated

25.08.2O10, to fu rnish the servicc particulars of six part-time swcepers, including the petitioner herein, rvhich wcre accordingly furnished by the l)eputy Educational Officer, I{uzu rabad, through lcttr:r datcd I 8.09.201O. [t u,as furthcr submitted that whilc the things stood thus, respondent No.2 has requested respondent No.3, vide letter dated 10.08.2011, to regularize thc serviccs of five pzrrt- 4 PK, .I 'V P.\o 17117 oJ 2a)0 time su'eeper s. induding thc petitioner hcrein, as hc. had complcted eight years :u'rd elevcr-r months of scrvice as ()n 2S. 1 1_ lgg3. Accordingly, rcspondent No.3, vidc Mcmo.No. 1935/ Scr.ll/201 1 darecl

22.O8.2O11, clirectcd rcspondcnt No.2 to cxamine tl.rt: pr.oposals scnt through lettr:r datcd 10.08.2011 in tcrms of G.O.N,ls.No..565 datccl 24.1O.1992 and also (rs per item No.2 of Cl.O.(1,).No. I 12 datccl 23.07.1997, on thc eligibility of cducational quahfications an<i also the rcqr-rirctl ten years of scrr.ice renderecl as on 25. I 1.1993. for regularization of scrvicc as part,timc ernployees. In spitc o[ thc samc, no action rv.rs Lzrkcn. Thcreforc, the petitioner submittecl his representatior-r d:rted 15.O7.2019, requcsting rcspondcnt No.2 to regularizc l-ris scn iccs as Ctass-lV emplg5rss. Ilt,spondcnt No. 1 , througl'r his lcttcr dalcd 28.07.20 19, rcquested respondcnt No.2 to issue necessarv instructions to rcgularizc the scrvice:s of thc petitioncr in tcrms of the ordcr o[ this Court dated 2O.08.2009 in W.p.No.5032 of 2OO2. Ai':ordingly. rr:spondent No.2 also directetl respondent No.1 to cxarnine t ite case of t he pctitioncr for rcgularization rvith refcrcr.rcc to the Govcr-L'rn'rctrt Menro dalcd 22.08.2011. as the petitioner fufrlls the rcquisitr.conditions stipulated in thc said Memo.

5. l,carnr:cl co,,sel contcnded that in spite of sper:ific directions i, favour of the pctitioltcr, respondent No.t has nou, passed the .,.2 5 PK, J w.l'.No. 171 17 of 2020 impugned order vidc Proc.Rc. No.87 | lR3l2ol9 dated 28.02.2020, rcjecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has not complcted tcn years of scrvice as on 25. 11 .1993, in terms of ().O.(P).No.112 dated 23.O7.1gg7 and the same is illegat, arbitrary, discriminatory and subversive of Articles 14 ar-rd 16 o[ the Constitution of India. It was also contended that paragraph 8 of the impugned ordcr has mechanically and erroneously hcld that the petitioner is not eligible for rcguiarization in terms of tl-rc decision of the I lon'blc Apcx Court in State o;f Karnataka u. Unta Deuil, which runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the said judgment held at Paragraph 53. 't'he l-lon'ble Apcx Court has categorically held that the Union of India, State Governmcnts and their instru mentalities should take steps to rcgularize, as a one-time measurc, the scrvicc of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten or more years in the dul). sanctioned post but not under the cover of orders of Courts or 'lribunals, and subject to verification as to wheLhcr thcy are working against. a vacant post and possess qualifications lor thc said post, if so, to regularize the services of such employecs. It was further submitted that following the decisions of the l{on'ble Apex Court in r (2006) 4 scc I 6 PK,,r \V.P.;'1o.17 ) 17 of 2020 Uma Devi (supra) an<l State of Karnataka t). M.L. Kesari2, a Divrsion Bcncl.r of this Court. in W.p.No.272 lT ot 20 17, hcld that thc clailv-u.ergc c:nployccs or. part timc employees, rvho l-ravc completcd ten years o- servicc. arc cntitlcd for regularrzation in terms oI paragraph 53 of Uma Deui (supra). It was subrnittcd that the petitioner hcrcir.r had colnpletccl tcn ycirrs of service b1, thc l,ear 1994 itself as he l.:rs initialll. appointcd in a sar-rctioncd post on 19g4. Thus, thc pctitioncr is cntitlcd lor regularizar.ion in the post ol Attendcr. Thcrclorc, lcurnccl counscl for thc pcIitioncr. pral,ccl this court to allo*' the preserll writ petition hy sel tinpi asirre thc imp.gnerl order dated 28.O2.2O2O passed by respondent No.1.

6. Per colttril, Learnecl (iovcrnmcnt pleadcr for Se^,ices_[ appearing on bchalI ol thc rcspor]clcnts, r,vhile aclmittinq tl.rc lact that thc pctitior-rer was appointed as part-time Swceper ar 1he officer of thc Deputy Inspcctor o[ Schools, Lluzurabad (Iiast) on 21.12.19g4 and that hrs scrviccs u,crc absorbed ctn rcgular basis rrs Attencler vide procecclings datcd 19.1 1. l9!18, submittcd thaL thc Commissioncr and Director of School Education, I..lyderabad, issuecl orders to revert the rcgularized part dme St,'eepcrs and instructed to rcport thcm in respeclive original place vidc procccdings date1, 22.04.1999, as thc 2 (2OtOl 9 SCC 247 7 PK, J w P.No.171 17 of 2020 part-timc swecpers were regularized against the rules mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.2 i2 dated 22.O4.1994 and G.O.(P).No.112 clated

23.O7 .1997 . Subscquently, thc petitioner was rcvertcd as parl-time Sweeper and was posted at the ofllcer of thc Deputy Inspector of Schools, lJuzurabad, vide proccedings dated 10.05.1999. It was further submitted that the erstwhilc Government of Andhra Pradesh issucd G.O.Ms.No.212 daLed 22.O4.1994, deciding to regularize the scrvice s of those employees who have been continuously working for a minimum pcriod of fivc ye ars and arc continuing as on 25.1 1.1993, be regularizcd, subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated thcrein. It was also submitted that G.O.(P).No.112 dated 23.07.1997 was issucd, in pursuance of a schemc formulated under the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointrncnts to I)ublic Scrvices and Rationalization of Staff Patrcrn and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act No.27 of 199ti) and it was decidcd that the services of [hose cmployces, u,ho have been continuously working for a minimum pcriod of tcn vcars and arc in scrvicc as on 25.1 1. 1993, be regularized by the appointing au l.horities, subject to the fulfillment of conditions stipulated thcrein. Learned Government pleader further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Sweeper on 2l .12.1984 and as pcr G.O.(t,).No.1 l2 datcd 23.O7 .tgg7 , he had j i 8 PK, J lV.P.No 17117 of 2020 completed onl_\, cight ycars and clcvcn months of scrvice zls on

25.11.1993. 'l'l'rerelbre, the petiti.rer is not cligibic f.r r.egularization of his scrvicc s in thc post of Attcndcr, as he is 4o[ covered wil-hin the zone of conditir>ns stipulated in the said G.O. Henc.e, his rcquest for regularizatiort n,as rightly rcjccted vide impugnc,d order datcd 24.O2.2O2O. 'l'hcrcfore, it q,as prayed to dismiss thc prcscnt u,rit petition. Rc.liancc has bccn placcd on the dccision of the Honblc Apex CourL Union oJ India q.nd. others u. Ihno Deui q.nd anothers

7. 'l'his Court has takcn notc ol the rival submissions made by the learned coulscl for thc rcspcctivc partics ard perusr:ci the material on record.

8. Aclmittcdly, thc petitioncr was initially appoinrc,d as a part_time Sweepcr in lltc officc ol tl'rc Dcputy Inspcclor.of Schools, Fluzurabad, in an cxisting vacancy vidc pro<:eedings datcd 2l.l2.lgg4 ald his services were later rcguiarized as an Attender vide proceedings dated

19. 1 1. I 998. Ilorvcvcr, thc said rcgularization was lzrtcr cancelled and the pctitionr:r' was rcvcrtcd to the post of parrt- time Srveepervide proccedings clatccl I 0.05. 1999. 'l'he petitione r assailecl the said orcler before ttre'Iribunal in O.A.No.27l l of 1999, u.hich u,:rs allorved in his 3 (2021) 20 SC(t 290 .--4 I 9 PK, J W.P. No. 17) 17 of 2O2O lavour vide order daled 27.04.2001. Therea-fter, the respondents approached this Court and filed W.P.No.5O32 of 2OO2, against the ordcr of thc 'l'ribulral, and thc said writ pctition was disposed of, directing tltc respondcnts to rc-considcr the claim of the petitioner in the light of G.O-Ms.Nos.212 and It2 dated 22.O4.1994 and

23.O7.1997 rcspectively. Ilou,cver, ultimately, the re spondents rejccted thc claim ol rhc pctitioner vide Mcmo datcd 2a.O2.2O2O, which is impugr-red in thc prcscnt writ pctition.

9. As can bc secn lrom thc impugned ordcr dated 28.O2.2O2O, the claim of thc petitioner lor rcgularizntion was rcjected on the ground that hc had completcd only eight years and clevcn month of service as a part-time Sweeper. I{ere, it is rclevant to refer to G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.O4.1994, r,",hercby, the Government had laid down a policy to rcgularize the sen ices of cmployecs u,ho had been continuously working for a minimum pcriod of fivc ycars and were in service as on

25.1 1. 1993, subject to fulhlling the conditions specihed therein, which included the cmployees to possess the requisite qualification for the said posts and also that they were working against existing vacancies, Subsequently, thc Government issued. G.O.(p).No. 112 dated 23.07.1997, cnhancing the minimum qualifying service from {-ivc to ten years. Thcrcforc, according to the rcspondents, since the 10 PK, J \,\t. P. Ato. I 7 1 1 7 oJ 2020 petitioner had completed only cight ycars .rnd clc\.en months of continuous scrvice as on 25.11.1993, his case cannot be considered for regularization as per G.O.(P).No.1 12 dated 23.07 1997. Howcver, it is not in dispute that the pctitioner lulfills the other eligibility criterion lor rr:gularization of his services.

10. In this connection, it is rclcvant to refer to tl're decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Utna Deui (supra), rr.rhercin, thc Court had categorically rlistinguishecl betr,vecn irrcgular and iLleg:rl appointments and carvcd out an cxception for r:cgularization in those cases \r,here irregular appoinLments r.r,cre made in thc sanclioned posts and where the said emplolrees had beer-r conLinuing in scrvicc for tcn years or more, rvithout the benefit of orders from an1'Courts or'l'ribunals. The Hon'ble Apex Court made tl-re follor'r,ing obscrvaLion: "53. One aspect needs to be clarrfied. 'l'hcrc rna1, bc cases rvhere irreguleu appointrncnts (not illegal apporntments) as cxplairted in S.V. Nara\'anappa l(1967) 1SCR 128:AIR 1967 SC 10711 . R.N. Nanjundappa lll97 2) 1 SCC 409 : (7972) 2 SCIi 7991 and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to rn para 15 above, oI duly qualilied Persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been macle and the employees have conlinued to rvorh lbr Len ycars ot- more but rvithou]- thc intervention of orclcrs of the courts or of lrrlJLrnals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the tight of the principles scttled b_v this Court in the cases aboverclcrred to aud irr the light of this judgmcrrt. In that context, the UnLon of lndia, thc State Governments ard tl.reir instrumentalities should takc steps to regularisc as a one-time measure, the scrvices of such irregularly appoimcd, rvho l-rave worked for ten ).-.cars or more in duiy sanctioncd posts but not under cover of ordcrs of thc courLs or of i l t l i i I I $ I l i I r i I I I I 11 PK, J W.P.No.17117 of 2O2O tribunals and should furthcr ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to frll those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be fitled up, in cases where tcmporary employees or daily wagers are being nou,emplo-ved. The process must be set in motion within six rnonths from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if arly already made, but not sub judtce, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutronal requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme., 1 1. Further, the Hon'ble Apcx Court, in M.L. Kesari (supra), also categorically hcld that wherc a workcr had completed more than ten years of servicc without thc shelLer of an order from any Court arld had been working against a sanctioned post, their claim must be examined in the light of paragraph 53 of Uma Deui (supra). The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereundcr: "8. The object bchind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those rvho have put in more than ten \.cars of continuous sen,ice ruithout the protection of any interim orders oI courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadcvi rvas rcndered, are considcred for regularization in view of their long scrvice. Second is to ensure that the departments/ instrumcrltalitres do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily wage/ad hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularDe them on the ground that they have served lor more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointrnent. 'l'lte true cffcct of the direction is that all persons who have workcd for morc than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision irr Umadcvi) lvithout the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, ln vacant posts, possessing the reqursrtc qualification, are entitled to be considcred for regularization. 'l'he fact ttrat the employer has not undertaken such cxercise of regularization within srx months of the decision in Umadcvi or that such cxercise was undertaken only in regard to a Iimited fcw, \{,i11 not disentitlc such employees, the right to be considercd for rcgularization in tcrms of the above directions in Umadevi as a onc time mcasure. 1,2 PK,.] V P.^to. 17117 of 2020 9 Thes, appeals have been pending for morc than four \cars alter rrre oec.sron rn umade\i. 'l'ho Apo..;1.n, l7-ila I,an lrj,,dl. cad,rgl has no1 considercd rhe r:ases "i -"p"ria,,ii,",i'-'.,.*,i"j)",ir-r r,"ithir.r six months of the dt:cision rrr Umadcvi or the:c;ri',,. "

12. Admitterllv, the petitioncr, urho possesserl the rcquisite qualiflcations, was appointed in an cxisting vacanc\, ol a sanctioncd post and hc hacl rendercd his serviccs for more th,ut lcn ycars as on the date of thc judgmcnL in Umc Dera (supra). Thc,r.clorc, this Court is of thc view t hat the principlc laid dou,n b-y t.he I lorr Apcx Court in uma Deui lsupra) squ.rch applics (o thc case or lhe petirro,er for regularizalion <;f his services as a onc-time mca sure. .ble

13. As regards the dccision of thc Ilon,ble Apex Court relicd on by the respondcnts. in rlrno Derz (supra), it is distinguishable on lacts as thc petitioner hcreir-r rvas appointed against a sanctior(,d vacancv and continucd in scrvice without any intcrruption. T,hcr.r:[ore. t.he said decision is of rro avail to the rcspondcltts. 14' In the light of the foregoing criscussion, this c.ourt is of thc considercd opinion that thc impugned order datc(r 2g.o2.2o2o rs unsustainable. and is thcreforc, liablc to be set asiclc.

15. Accorciingly, the Writ pctition is allo,,ved sL.Lting asidc the rmpugned order vide Rc.No.87t /83 /2019 datcd 28.O:2.2O2O issued by 13 PK, ,] W.P.No.17117 of 2020 respondent No.1, and the respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with decisions of thc Hon'ble Apcx Court in lltna. Deui (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra), and pass appropriate ordcrs therco, .t.i.tty in accordalce with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. Miscellaneous applications, if an1,, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closcd. No costs I I i //TRUE COPY// SD/.B. REKHA RANI ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 2 J 4 5 6 The District Educational Officer, Karimnagar, Ka The Director of School Education, Telangana, Te ngana state The Principal Secretary, Government of Telangana, Education Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to SRI CH.JAGANNATHA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies agar District To SA BS I t oP IhE ST,q rq k o/ o 05 rlJE ztE .': r5 -a,,r4.rCl HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 ORDER WP.No.17117 of 2020 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. )-^