V. Anianeyulu, S/o.Late v. Srimannarayanq, -Aged Ooeratirr/Computer Operator

.....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings lvlemo.No.11678/SER,lll/A1120161 dated 09.09.20.16 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings tvlemo.Rc.No.Al/TS SPF/13/2016, dated 01.10.2016 of the 4th respondent is arbitrary, illegal violative of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and contrary to the appointment order and the gurdelines in G.o,Ms.No.16 Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016 and Quash or set aside the same and to issue a consequential drrection to the '1st and 2nd responrJents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services as Typist/Data Entry Operator/Junior Assistant in the existing vacancy in the office of the 4th respondent office by treating the appointment of the peti.ioner is on Contract basis with all consequential benefits. I.A.NO:1 OF 2017 (WPMP.NO:7765 OF 2017) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 4 to continue the petitioner in service in the 4th respondent office. l.A.NO:1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to regularize the servicer; of the petitioner as Typist or Junior AssistantiData Entry Operator in the existing regular vacancies available in the 4th respondent office on par with (5544) Contract employees as per G.O.lVs.No.38, date 30.04.2023 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Finance (HRM.1 ) Department. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.RAJENDRA BABU counsel for the Respondents : M/s A.SAWASREE, GP FOR SERVICES (HOME) The Court made the following ORDER :iFti-" i I I /l 1 wp 6338 2017 N8K, I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRJT PETITION No.6338 of 2017 ORDER: 'lhe case of the petitioner, as per the writ affrdavit, is that he holds a B.Com (Computer Applications) degree, a Diploma irr Cornputer Applications, and Typewriting Higher Grades in both English (in 2001) and Telugu (in 2002). He was registered with the District l-mploymcnt Exchange on 29.06.2000, and was selected for the post ol- Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator by the 4tl' respondent (Special Protection Irorce) through a selection process conducted on 09.07.2008, pursllanl to a rcquisition made to Jyothi Computer Services vide l{ef'erence No' .ICS/SPF'/2008 1719, dated 09.07.2008, and was appointed by proceedings dated 15.07.2008 on a contractual basis effective from 10 07'2008 in accordance with G.O.Rt.No.250l Finance (SMPC) Department dated 13.07.2006; and since then the petitioner has served continuousiy and satisfactorily. The petitioner's appointnlent was made against a sanctioned post, and over the years, the State ofAndhra Pradesh and, post- bifurcation, the State ofTelangana, continued to approve and extend thcse conh'actual posts, including through G.O.Rt.No'1640 IIornc (Scrvices- III) Department dated 14.11.2003, G.O.Rt.No.730 dated 28'05'2005, G.O.Ms.No.l3 Finance (HRM-D dated 01.07.2014, G.O.Rt.No.357 dated 25.10.2014, and G.O.Rt.No.890 dated 13.10.2015, thereby evidencing that the post held by the petitioner is regular in natttre. Following G.QMs.No.16 Finarice (HRM-I) Department dated 26.02.2016' which was issued pursuant to amendments made to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services aud I I ! I i 2 wp 5338 2017 N8K, I Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act as adapted to Telangana, providing for regularization of full-time cc,ntract employees working as on 02.06.2014 against sanctioned posts, the petitioner. having fullllled all stiprLlated c-onditions under the said G.O. ar.rd Memo dated 26.02.2016 (at Annexure P15), submitted representations dated 02.03.2016,07.06.2016, and 25,06.2016 for regularization. The I'r respondent, through various memos including Memos rtated 10.03.2016,

05.05.2016. 18.05.2016, and 25.05.2016, sought fufther details from thc 4'r' respondent. who responded through Letters dated 02.04.2016, 16.05.2016 and dated 20.07.2016, confirming the petitioner's appointrnent on contract basis on 10.07.2008 and current eligibility for a vacant Tl,pist post in the departrnent. However, by Memo dated 09.09.2016. the l't respondent arbitrarily rejected the pe.-itioner's case for regularizatir>n, erroneouslv treating him as an outsourc,:d employee and stating that the proposal was not in conformity with the applicable guidelines. despite the clear documentary evidence and appointmcnt plocedures establishing her status as a contract emplovee. The 4,r, respondent conr,'eyed the govemment's decision vide Memo dated

01.10.2016. Alleging that the action of the respondents as arbitrary and discrirninatorv vis-i-r,is the material on record including o{ficial G.O.s. me mos! and selection orders, the petitioner seeks a direction to the I't and 2t1d responclents to regularize her sqrvices as TvpisL/Data Entry Operator/.lunior Assistant against the existing sanctioned vacancy in the ofllce ofthe 4th respondent. . -. 3 wp_6338 2017 NBK, J

2. Heard Mr. A, Rajendra Babu, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and Mrs. A. Satyasree, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Services (I{ome). Perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner would essentially contend that

3. the petitioner, a B.Com (Computers) graduate, has been continuously discharging duties as a Data Entry Operator in the Telangana Special Protection Force since 15.07.2008, having been appointed through Jyothi Computer Services pursuant to Rc.No.A1/92ISPF/04-2008 and G.O.Rt.No.730, Home (Ser-IIf Department, dated 28.05.2005, read with G.O.Rt.No.2501, Finance (SMPC) Department, dated 13.07.2006. It is submitted that the nature of the petitioner's duties and the long tenurc of unintenupted service of over 15 years, alongwith the fact that his post is one among the three DEO posts allotted to Telangana State post- bifurcation as per Rc.No.AllSPF/4712014, clearly establish that he is working against a regular post, and not merely in a stop-gap outsourced l.raving capacity. It is further contended that the Govemment of taken a policy decision under G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Departme nt, dared 26.02.201 6, to re gulari ze c ontract emp loyees working -felangana, in various departments, is bound to consider the petitioner's case as he satisfies the conditions laid down therein, including long-standing selice, appointment through valid process, and perfonnance of regular duties under official superwision. It is contended that the petitioner's categorization as an "outsourced" employee is arbitrary as he has been functioning under the direct control of the department, and denial of regularization on such technical classification violates Article 14 and Article 2l of the Constitution of India. 4 wp 6338_2017 NBK, J a

4. Learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Sen,ices, basing on the counter affidavit filed b-v respondent No.4 - Director of Ielangana Special Protection Force (l'SSPF), contends that the Special Protection Force was constituted under Act 25 of 1991 by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Governmenl to provide armed protection to vital installations such as ternples, dams, power projects, the RBI, High rlourt. Telangana Secretariat, :rnd residences of Hon'ble High Court Judges. The petitioner, a B.Com (Cornputers) graduate, was appointed as a Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator on an outsourcing basis via Rc.No.Al/92lSPlV04-2008 dated I 5.07.2008, following G.O.Rt.No.730, Home (Ser-lll) Department dated 28.05.2005 and G.O.RI.No.2501, Finance (SN,'IPC) Department dated 13.07 .2006, througir Jyothi Computer. Services, Hyderabad, with the Govemrnent having pemritted engagement of seven Computer Operators on a consolidated pay after abolishing all regular sanctioned posts. Pursuant to the State bifurcation, three DEO posts \,vere allocated to Telangana, and the petitioner has been working in one of thern since A2.06.2014 as per Rc.No.A1/S;PF14712014, but continues to be an outsourced employee, not working a1;ainst any regular post as wronglrr claimed. l'he Government of 1-elangana issued G.O.Ms.No.l6" [inance (tlRM-f) Ifepaftment dated 26.02.2016 with policy guidelines for regularization of contract emplcyees, subject to certain conditions, and the same was adapted by'Ielanp;ana with suitable modifications, but tire petitioner, being an outsourcerl workeq cannot claim regularization as a matter of right. Further, it is the State Govemment's discrition to consider regularization, anC this respondent had already 'written letters to the Government vide olrlce Letters dated W:pJ.2016. 16.05.2016, 30.05.2016. and 20.07.2016, forwarding the 5 wp 6338 2017 NB(, J petitioner's case and remarks fbr fuither necessary action. It is reiterated that the petitioner is not a contract employee but an outsourced one, receiving salary through Jyothi Computers, and thus his claim lacks factual basis, and therefbre the writ petition is devoid of merit.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the petitioner, a B.Com (Computers) graduate, was appointed as a Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator on a contractual outsourcing basis through Jyothi Computers Services, Hyderabad, vide Rc.No.A | / 921 SPF I 04-2008 dated I 5.07.2008, pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.730,, Home (Ser-lll) Department, dated 28.05.2005, and in accordance rvith G.O.Rt.No.250l, Finance (SMPC) Department, dated

13.07.2006. Following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, three such DIIO posts wele allocated to Telangana State, and the petitioner has been serving in one ofthese positions in the Telangana Special Protection Force I I (1'SSPF) as per Proceedings Rc.No.AllSPF/4712014 dated 02.06.2014. The petitioner contends that he is working in a regular post and seeks regularization of his services under G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance GIRM-I) Department, dated26.02.20l 6. However, the respondents clarify that the I I pctitioner is engaged on att outsourcing basis, not as a contract emplol-ee, and his remuneration is disbursed through the authorized agency, Jyothi Computers Services. The regular/sanctioned posts of typists/stenographers in the department were abolished, and the departrnent annually requests thc govemment for the continuation of outsourcing posts. The claim that the petitioner is working in a regular post is therefore factually incorrect. Regarding the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.l6, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016, the 6 wp-6338_2017 NBK, J respondents have aiready forwarded the petitioner's case to the government for consideration, as evidcnced by letters lated 02.04.2016,

16.05.2016,30.05.2016, and20.07.2016, and it is within rhe discr.etion of the state goYernment to decide on the regularization oi- services, subject to the fulfilirnent oi'conditions specified in the aforementioned G.O. Furthermore. this ('ourr lras struck dowrr Secrion l0-A ol the 1'elangana Education Act, which enabled the regularization of corltract employees, declaring it unconstitutional and contrary to public policy. In that view of the matter, the petitioner's claim for regularization cannot be countenanced, as he is an outsourced employee, not a contract employee, anci the regularization policy under G.O.Ms.No.16 hrrs been declared uncor-rstitutional.

6. Accorrlingl'v. the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneor-rs petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ,ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \t,r. \\'.=_= _, ' secrtoru oFFlcER \ \ To

1. Two CC's G.P. FOR SERVICES (HOIME), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

2. One CC to SRI A.RAJENDRA BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies SA GJP L'.*- -..-'.- ...,C;.,,ii,. HIGH COURT I DATED:2810512025 ORDER WP.No.6338 of 2017 1 I iuii t*fr '_' rt"1-l t_ ' DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. /(