The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir ; the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court r allow the Writ Petition No. 6536 of 201 6 as prayed for direc t to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect frorr nstances stated in ray be pleased to tg the respondents )3.07 199'1 with all consequential benefits against the existing aided vacancy/ser Respondents failed to file their Counter within 4 weeks as dir: Court or within 6 months of receiving the notice or rule nis Petition as contemplated under Rule 12(i)(a) & (ii) of the Wri. ::ion ed post as the ;ted by this Hon'ble ln the above Writ rroceedings Rules, 1977, in spite of specific direction of this Hon'ble Court to file , 4 weeks as drrected by this Hon'ble Court vide Docket 01.03 2016 heir Counter within 'roceedings, dated Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. SREE RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: Ms. B. ANNAPURNT\ AGP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER t Ca'J wp 5536 2016 NDKJ THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.6536 of 2016 ORDER: The petitioner seeks the regularization of his services as an Attender in the 3'd respondent-College, a position he has held sincc his appointment on

03.07.1991. It is his case that he was initially appointed on 03.07.1991, against an existing aided vacancy, and while he performs the duties of this aided post, his salary has always been paid from the College's Corpus fund rather than the govemment's grant-in-aid, resulting in payment of meagre wages, paid into his bank account with Corporation Bank opened on 22.12.1,991, and he was also enrolled in the Employees' Provident Fund scheme on 08.01.1992. It is stated that a separate writ petition, W.P. No. 1 1009 of 20 I 4, rvas flled by him and I 0 other employees seeking better wages, which is pending, but distinct from the current plea for regularization.

1.1 The petitioner contends that for 24 years, no communication was ever sent to him by the first or second respondents stating that his services would not be regularized. This prolonged silence, coupled with his continuous service in a sanctioned post, fostered a genuine and legitimate expectation that his position would eventually be made permanent. He states that the respondent college appointed him out of compulsion because the first and second respondents failed to fill the vacant aided posts. The petitioner alleges that the govemment's inaction has resulted in non-payment of aided salaries earmarked for the post he has occupied for over two decades.

1.2 Petitioner further states that though the respondent contends that his initiat appointment was made by the respondent college without following the proper procedure or obtaining prior permission from the government \ qrthorities, such an irregularity constitutes a curable irregularity, not an : I I 2 wp 6516_2015 NB(] incurable illegality, especiarly after 24 years of unin t rrupted service. He further contends that his cause of action is continuous. enewed day-by-day due to the govemment's failure to implement the judgr rent of the t{on'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umade', 1. and in State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesa ri2.

1.3 In support of his case, the petitioner refers < W.p. No. i9090 of. 20 1 1, where a similarly situated attender appointed on 05 ( g.rggz,was granted regularization, and this decision was upheld by the Division Bench in w.A.No. 1393 of 2012 and ultimately confirmed by the Sr preme court, as the SLP No.29508 of 2013 fired by rhe stare has been dismiss :d on 2g.10.2014. It is also stated that while this specific order of the Hor':[e Supreme court carried a rider that it should not be cited as precedent, the p :titioner argues that the underlying principles of the Umadevi and M.L. K: rari judgments still squarely apply to his situation. He concludes by passicr etely appealing for justice, emphasizing that at 54 years of age, he has dedice .ed his entire youth to the institution, and therefore seeks a direction to regula.. ze his serviccs with effect from 03.07.I99 l, rvith all consequential benefits. 2. Respondent Nos. I and 2 filed, a counter affidavit, ontending that the petitioner has no legal or contractual relationship with the E )verrunent and that his employment is a private matter between him and tt: third respondent college, which also runs unaided sections. It is contendec hat the petitioner,s claim ofbeing appointcd to an aided vacancy is entirery urr ubstantiated, as he has filed no rnaterial evidence to prove it, and they derl any obligation to regu larize his sen ice.

2.1 The respondents contend that G.O.Ms.No.l 1 ,, Education, dated 18.12.1976, mandates a specific selection process for nc,r _teaching posts in . t (2006) 4 scc 1 (2010) 9 scc 247 'z 3 wp 65t6 2016 NBK,J private aided colleges, and this process requires the management to constitute a Selection Committee thar inctudes a represenrarive of the Director of Higher Education, who must be informed 15 days in advance and whose presence is necessary for the quorum. Furthermore, the posts must be adverlised in at least two prominent daily newspapers. It is contended that the college appointed the petitioner without adhering to this procedure. This position is reinforced by referencing later proceedings dated 18.09.1995, which required managements to seek prior permission lrom the Commissioner ol Collegiate Education before filling vacancies, a step the management also seemingly ignored.

2.2 The respondents rebut the petitioner's case by contending that the ruling in Umadevi (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra) upply to irregular appointments within govemment departments and their instrumentalities, not to individuals who have "chosen his employment in a Private College." [t is contended that the petitioner was appointed through a "back door method," is inetigible for regularization. Furthermore, under G.O:Ms.No. 212, dated

22.04.1994, the services of those who had worked continuously for a minimum period offive years and were continuing as on 25.11.1993 were regularized under this scheme, and the petitioner's case does not qualiry.

2.3 It is contended that while the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed their Special Leave Petition No. 29508 of 2013, along with SLP Nos. 29509 to 29511 of 2013 on28.1o.2014, there was a specific rider in the judgment that it cannot be a precedent in any other case. They further state that when the govemment complied with the High Court's order in that specihc case vide G.O.Rt.No. 269, dated l3.ll.2ol4, the regularization was granted only with prospective effect and under the same non-precedent condition.

2.4 The respondents also contends that govemment's policy imposed a ban on the recruitment of aided posts, instituted through G.O. Ms. No. 35, \ ",'" --;:j 4 wp.6536-2016 NBI(,] Higher Education Department, dated 27 .03.2006, an I therefore this ban prevents the very relief sought by the petitioner. It is als I contended that the enrolment in Provident Fund has no bearing on establisf ng an aided post or the relief being sought and therelore there is no merit in t re writ petition.

3. Heard Mr. B. Sree Rama Krishna, leamed counsel f rr the petitioner; and Mrs. B. Annapurna, learned Assistant Govemment Pl ader for Sen'ices-I appearing on behalf of the respondents. Perused the reccr 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would essent:e lly contend that the

4. petitioner's continuous service of over 24 years in a sr rctioned aided post, without any communication from the govemment quesri rning his status, has created a legitirnate expectation for regularization. lt : contended that the initial appointment inegularity, if any, is a curable defect that stands cured by the uninterrupted sen,ice of 24 years. The counsel emp r sizes that the cause of action is continuous, and the respondent-authorities fri ed to implement the principies laid down in the Umadevi (supra) and M.L. Ke ;ari (supra).

5. . Leamed Assistant Government Pleader, on the oth: the petitioner has no privity of contract with the employment is a private matter with the college. It is petitioner's appointment was made in clear violatio r ' hand, contends that lovemment, as his contended that the of the mandatory government orders (G.O.Ms.No.1 1 19 and subsequent prescribe a specific selection process, including adr presence of a government official, and was thert: appointment. She distinguishes the Umadevi (supra) anc stating they apply to govemment instrumentalities employment chosen by the petitioner. The AGP fuitlrt:; petitioner did not qualiff for regularization under tl: (G.O.Ms.No. 212) and, that the Supreme Court order ir rroceedings) which :rtisement and the ore a "back-door" r{.L. Kesari (supra), md not to private points out that the : one-time scheme a similar case was I 5 wp_6536 2016 N8(l explicitly non-precedential. Finally, she asserts that a gover-nment ban on recruitment to aided posts (G.O. Ms. No. 3 5) legally prevents the regul zrizatiot sought by the petitioner. 6, Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as an Attender in the 3'd respondent-College on 03.07.1991. Though it is contended that the third respondent college did not follow the detailed procedure under G.O.Ms.No.1119, dated 18.12.1976, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has worked continuously for 24 years, and he was also enrolled in the Employees' Provident Fund scheme on 08.01.1992.

6.1 Though the regularisation scheme under G.O.Ms. No. 2 I 2 mandated completion of five years of service and the petitioner may not apparently become eligible under the said specihc scheme, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been rendering services in the third respondent-college since 03.07. l99l without intemrption in service. Furthermore. it is rhe contention ofthe respondent authorities that the induction of the petitioner into servic'e was not by taking due permission of the State Govemment which is an irregularity, however, the said irregularity in the instant case is not so grave as to deny the benefit of 24 years of service. Furthermore, it is not the case of either the respondent-State or the respondent-College that the petitioner is not competent or not qualified to render services as Attender, and therefore though there may be "irregularity" in obtaining permission before employing the petitioner, there is no "illegality" in the appointment itself as the incumbent was eligible and competent to perform the duties of Attender. Furthermore, it is not the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner was being continued in service based on the orders passed by the Coutt. \ \- ::.; ( i l I i l l I I i l t ! 6 wp 6536-2016 NB(]

6.2 At this juncture, it is to be noted that in (Jmct izvi (supra) judgment rendered in 2006, thc Hon'ble Supreme court while rJr: ferentiating between "irregular" and"illegal" appointments,, has directed the a.r horities to regularise the services of thosc u,ho completed l0 years of serv ( e as on 10.04.2006. without the protection of courl orders. The petitioner has r dmittedly completed l0 years of serv'ice, and therefore his case is squarely c rvered by this ratio. Furthermore, the respondents' reliance on G.o.Ms.No . 2 1 z, dated 22.04.lgg 4, with its cutoff date of25.11.1993, is rendered otiose b1 the subsequent and binding directives of the supreme court in the t rr rudevi (snpra) arrd M.L.Kesari (supra), and the latest judgment in Jaggo vs. Union of India3. In Jaggo (supra), the Flon'ble Supreme Cou1, by referring to

7. Umadevi (supra), held as follows:

26. LI/hile the j udgment in Llmadevi (supra) sougt t practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointme,t constitutionol principles, it is regrettable that its prir.t misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate clainu emplovees. This judgment aimed to distinguish betw<tt t "irregular'' appointments. It categorically held tfu.t ' irregular oppointtnents, who were engaged in duly sc and had served continuotuly for more than ten y<t considered for regularization as a one-time measur(. lctudqble intent of t/1e judgment is being subverted wl rely on. its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of e, in cases where their oppointments are not illegal, tr adherence lo procedural formalities. Government tle,t cite the judgment in Umadevi (supra) to argue lhat n.c regularization exists for temporory employees, or judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where r t. appropriote. This selective application distorts the jtt and purpose, elfectively weaponizing it against emplo; rendered indispensable sen,ices over decades. to c:urtail the t.s adhered to iples are often '/' long-serving " illegal" and employees in rctioned posts rs, should be However, the ?n institutions tployees, even t merely lack n'tments often ,ested right to trlooking the rularization is gment's siiiit ees who have 27 In light of these considerations, in our ryinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead ly example in providing Jitir and stable employment. Engaging t.orkers on a \ temporary basis for extended periods, especially when heir roles are - I 3 2024 tNsc 1034 7 wp 65t6 2016 N8K,] inlegral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organizotion to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment proctices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of .justice and fairness lhat they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with inlernational standards and sets a positive preceden.t for lhe private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the counlry. ln that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that

8. the petitioner having rendered services for over two decades without intemrption cannot be denied the benefit of regularisation in the tight of the law [aid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra) and Jaggo (supra), and therefore this is a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction cf this Courl under Article 226 to grant the relief sought for.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. The l't respondent shall pass appropriate orders regularising the services of the petitioner. The petitioner shall not claim retrospective monetary benefits on account of this order.. However, in view of the settled law that past services prior to regularisation can be counted towards pensionary benefits, the service of the petitioner from 03.07. 1991 to the date of regularisation, shall be counted for the purposes of pension and retirement benehts. Miscellaneous petitions pending, ifany, shalI stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute Witness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APAR-ESH KUMAR SINGH' wionisolv,rHE TWENTY NINrH DAY,o-F- o-croBER -.-- TWO-THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SD/. S. M LIKARJUNA RAO ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Ed-ucation'-T'S'' 1 l t The Commissioner of College Education, Commi:'l onerate of Higher Education. Telangana Slate. Hyderabad. The Secretary & 6orresponderit, St.Anns College for W: nen, Santhoshnagar Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad - 500028. One CC to SRl. B. SREE RAIUA KRISHNA, Advocate Il rUC] Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l, High Court for the ll lte of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies 2 4 3 4 5 B IVI Yk HIGH COURT \ DATED:2911012025 c \ I J 1 02$ 'v (: ! o O \, * l) ORDER WP.No.6536 of 2016 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETTTION WITIIOUT COSTS s u- i(€t