The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI B.THIMOTHI, (SC FOR TU NIZMBD) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : ASST.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER \ I I THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION o.32890 0F 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Ravi Mohan, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri Naresh Kumar Gorige, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record, Sri B.Timothi, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana University appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seekinq the praver as under: "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in issuing impugned notice dt 24-10-2025 in terminating the service oF the petitioner with effect from 01-11- 2025 is illegal arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed by the Honourable High Court in W.P.No. 30332 of 2025 dt 08-10-2025 and consequently set aside the same and continue the petitioner services as per the agreement No.1 Security Personal agencies dt 06-09- 2024 and agreement No. 2 Out sourcing agency dt 06- 09-2024 till to September, 2026 and pass..." ) sN.J W.P.Nc .1289 O of 2025 3 a The <:ase of the petition er. in brief, as oer the t e affidavit filed b th i: etiti ner in sup port of the present Writ Petition is qs r:1deJ: i) The petitioner is a registered firm ancl has been supplying orrtsourcing stafF to the respondeni University under an agr-eement dated 06.09.2024. The sai<: agreement is valid for one year and is extendable for another year under Clau:;e 3 of the said agreement, subject to satisfactory performance. ii) Though there were no complaints aEainst the petitioner, cluring the subsistence of the agreement, respondent No.1 issued a tender notification vide Tender No.105/REG/'TU/NZB/2025 dated 12.09.2025 inv ting fresh agencies, which is contrary to the contractual terms. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 30332 of 2025, wherein this Court, by order dated 08.10.2025, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for extension and to maintain status quo till a declsion after due consideration is taken by the authority concerned J SN,J W.P.No.32a9O of 2()25 pertaining to the request of the petitioner to continue the petitioner services as outsourcing agency and communicate the said decision to the petitioner. iii) In spite of the order dated 08.10.2025, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order vide No.121IREG/TU/NZB/2025 dated 24.10.2025, terminating the petitioner's services with effect From 01.11.2025, without issuing any notice or assigning any reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 4,P ERUSED T E RECORD: A) The order imouone d vide proceedinqs No. 1 2 1,/ REG /TUl NZi I LO25 dated 24. 1 O. 2O22 passed bv the tespoJrdeit NoJ-ttte Reqistrar. Telanqana Universitv to the oetitioner aqencv is extracted hereunder: "With reference to the subject cited above you are hereby informed that; as per the order of Hon'ble High Court dated; 08-10-2o25 in w.P.No.30332 of 2025. the Telangana University has considered the 1 SN,J W.P.No.32890 of 2o25 requesl for extension of contract period and rejected for the following reasons: As per the work order issued on O6-a9-2024, your clntract period was expired on 05-09-2025, therc:fore the university has issued a fresh notiflcation oo L2-t)9-2025 by mentioning that the last date for receiving tender quotatlons is 06-10-2025 by 4.00.P.14., and the tender will be opened on 07-10- 2025 ar 1 1 :00 A. M.

2. It is a fact that, you are not barred to file a tender for the said notification and you are also filed a vender-to the said notification. :1. It is also a fact that you are also paliicipated in luckv draw for finalization of tenders as more aqencies quoted equal lowest price. In that Luc<y draw the follo\ving agencies got the opportunity; For Catcgory-I: M/s Om Sree Sai Security & House Keeping Services, Secunderabad. For Catcgory-II M/s Veerabhadra Infra & Facility Managerr,ent Pvt., Ltd., Hyderabad. Jne issuance of notification for tender is a prerogati,/e right of the University and the University will select outsourcing agency keeping in mind the specific n,leds of the institution. And the University has every authority to consider application of those r,vhose acts are not detrimental to the interest oF the University.

5. Therefore, you are hereby inforrr,:d to complel e the payment of EPF & ESI contribution dues of all the outsourcing employees up to the month of October, 2025 on or before 06-11-2025 and subnrit the same to th is office. i i i SN,J w.P.No.32890 0f 2025

6. Your services will be terminated from 01-11- 2025 onwards. This is for your information." I I B) Clause '3' of the Aqreement dated 06.O9.2O24 entered into between oetitioner aqency and respondent No.1 University is extracted hereunder: "3. The both the parties hereby agree that the agreement is last up to the period of one year from the date hereof, that means of is deemed to be effective from 6th day of September, 2024 A.D. to 5rh September, 2025 A. D. If the performance is satisfactory the contract will be extended to one more year." C) Paraqraph 7 of the written instructions dated

30.1O.2025 placed on record by the learned Standinq Counsel of the resoondent Universitv durinq the course of hearinq, is extracted hereunder: "7. It is only the change of the outsourcing agency, but not the termination of all the existing 275 outsourcing employees. Even after the University entered into the contract with the next agencies/ all the existing 275 outsourcing employees will be continued as usual." DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 6 sN.l W.P.No.3289() of 2025

5. A bare perusal of Clause (3) of the agreement entered into between the petitioner outsourcing agency and the Registrar, Telangana University, Dichpally, Nizamabad, Telangana dated 06.09.2024, indicates that the period of the agreement, executed between the petitioner agency and the respondent University, is from 06.09 .2024 to

05.09.2025 It is further provided that, if the performance is found satistactory, the contract may be extended for one more year as per clause'3'of the said agreement.

6. Learnerd counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner agency has 275 outsourcing employees, ,rnd by virtue of the declsion of the respondent University to engage M/s. Om Sree Sai Security & Housekeeping Services, Secunderabad, and M/s. Veerabhadra Infra & Facility Management Private Limited, Hyderabad, the petitioner agency would be throurn out and the said deci:rion is contrary to Clause (3) of the agreement entered into between the petitioner agency and the respondent U r iversity.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for Telangana University, upon instructicns dated 30.10.2025, contends that it is only I i I I I i I I 1 SN,J W.P.No.3289O of 2O25 a change of the outsourcing agency and not a termination of the existing 275 outsourcing employees, and that even after the University enters into a contract with the new agencies, all the existing 275 outsourcing employees will continue as usual. 8 A bare oerusal of the record indicates that the reement entered t between the t ri ne aqency and the Respondent Universitv is intended for the supply of personnel bv the first partv to the second party. The first partv is required to ensure the proper continuation of the oersons deoloved with the Theref c h tth olea of the respondent Universitv that it is onlv a chanoe of the outsourcino aoencv and not a termination of the existino 275 outsourcino emolovees is not tenable, since an aqencv undertakino work on behalf of the resoondent Universitv admittedlv would have its own oersonnel and not the personnel of petitioner's aqencv. 8 SN,J W.P.No.3289O of 2025 9. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated

24.1O.2025 also does not indicate any failure on the part of the petitionr:r in discharging petitioners duties, nor does it disclose any deficiencies or irregularities on the part oF the petitioner st:curity personnel agency. The impugned order dated 24.10 2025 merely states that the University has the authority to select an outsourcing agency, keeping in mind the specific needs of the institution, and that the issuance of a tender notification is the prerogative right of the University.

10. This Court opines that the impugned order dated

24.10.2025, passed by the Registrar of the responderrt University, is contrary to Clause ( 3) of the agreement Cated O6.O9.2O24 entered into between the petitionr:r and the respondent University., and that the same was issued without considering the petitioner's request to continue its services for one more year as per Clause (3) of the said agreernent.

11. In view of the fact as borne on record that there are no complaints against the petitioner, nor it is the case of the respondent University, even as per the imprtgned order, that 9 SN,J W.P.No.32890 of 2()25 there were any Iapses on the part of the petitioner agency in discharging its duties as per the terms of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent University, duly taking into consideration Clause 7 of the written instructions dated 30.10.2025 issued by the respondent University(referred to and extracted above) this Court opines that the subject issue needs reconsideration by the respondent University and the respondent University has to necessarily consider the grievance of the petitioner, as put forth in the present writ petition, for continuation of the petitioner's services as an outsourcing agency in the respondent University, duly taking into consideration Clause 3 of the agreement dated 06.09.2024 entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent University, since the written instructions clearly indicate that the respondent University intends to change the outsourcing agency and not to terminate the services of all the existing 275 outsourcing employees, for no fault of the petitioner agency though CIause '3' of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 University dated

06.09 ,2024 provides for extension by one more year if the performance of the petitioner agency is satisFactory and it is I l0 SN,J W.P.No.32890 of 2025 not the case of the 1't respondent University even as per the words indi<.ated in the notice impugned dated 24.L0.2025 issued bv tire respondent University terminatinq the service of the petit oner agency w.e.f. 01.11.2025, that the services of the petitioner agency had not been satisfactory. 12, TAKII.IG INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The ,rforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The s ubmissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana University appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant (iovernment Pleader for Higher Education appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, c) Earlier order of this Court dated 08.10.2025 passed in 1A'.P.No. 3O332 of 2O25, d) The (:ontents of the impugned order vide proceedings; No.121 /REG/TU/NZB/2025 dated II SN,J W.P.No.32890 of 2025 24.LO.2022 passed by the respondent No.1-the Registrar, Telangana University to the petitioner agency (referred to and extracted above), e) Clause '3' of the agreement entered into between petitioner agency and respondent University (referred to and extracted above), f) Paragraph No.7 of the written instructions dated

30.10.2025 (referred to and extracted above), The Writ Petition is allowed, and the imouqned order vide proceedinqs No.121lREG/TUlNZB/2O25 dated 24.LO,2O25 is set aside. Respondent No,1- University is directed to consider the qrievance of the petitioner, as put forth in the present writ oetition, for continuation of the petitioner's services as an outsourcinq agencv in the respondent Universitv, dulv takinq into consideration Clause (3) of the aqreement dated O6.O9.2O24 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent University, and take a decision on the subiect issue t n tru e s irit of the directions of this Court dated O8.10.2O25 oassed in W.P.No.3O332 of I \ sN,l W.P.Nc,.3289O of 2O25 Htr - 2025 filecl bv the petitioner on an earli,.'r occa ston duly e)(arnl nins the reouest of the D r:rtitio ner to continue the petitioner services as rrutsourcinq aqencv wil.hin a oeriod of one ( 1 ) week frcin the date of receipt ,lf a coDV of this order in accor d ance to law and in cc,nformitv with the D rtnct iustice, bv providinq an oDDortun tv o' oersonal les of nat u ral D hearinq to the petitioner and dulv commLrnic decision to the petitioner herein, The respondents are further dirercted not to Droceed with the finalization of the tenders till the above exercise as indicated as above within the time period as stipulated:r5 above is undertake_g bv the respondent universitr,_ and the decision on the subiect issue is communicated to the oetitaoner. However, there shall be no or cler as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petitioi. shall stqnd closed. t I Friday, The Thirtv Firs't'#; & d;;;"t T*" tt"Jtl"J nna rwentv'rive l That tlule Nisi has been made ,'!?glyt" as above' witness rHE HoN'Bl-E rl-i;biiEiiiibiice-apanesH KUMAR sINGH' on this .I..SRINIVAS REDDY STANT REGISTRAR I f \{'\ //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, -l-elangana University' Dichpally' Ni mak,ad, Telangana The Registrar, The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana' Higher Education Department' Secretariai, HYderabad One CC to SRI NARESH KUMAR GORIGE' Advocate lOPUCl 1 2 3 I

4. One CC to SRI B.THIMOTHI, (SC for Telangana University, Dichpally, Nizamabad) IOPUCI

5. Two CCs to GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OU!

6. Two CD Copies. BSK w HIGH COURT DATED:31 11At2025 CC TODAY \Hi o ,-) g 4 t;t1U Zl[i 7:' C Ij,\T ORDER WP.No.32890 of 2025 ALLOWING TI.{E WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \o