R. Sudhakar v. The State of Telangana

WRIT PETITION No.366aa of2024 With the consent of the parties, the Writ petition is disposed of aL the stage of admission itself. 2l Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in considering the representation of the petitioner dated 13.12.2024, the present Writ Petition is filed 3) Heard Sri G. Satyanarayana yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri K. Ram Murthy, learned Standing Counsei for respondent No.2. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was appointed as Instructor on 19.11.7992 on contract basis by Respondent No.2 and thereafter he was retired from service on 31.12.2021 as Assistant professor on attaining the age of 60 years as contract employee without taking the benefits of retirement from respondent No.2. It is further submitted that in almost a_11 Departments, respondent No.2 has been appointing all retired faculty to work as Guest Faculty on hourly basis @ Rs.700/_ per hour subject to maximum of 6O hours per month.

Accordingly, petitioner was aiso appointed as Assistalt professor to work as Guest faculty on hourly basis on 2I.06.2022, 06.09.2Cl23 aod 29.01.2024 continuously in I i ,i I I t I 1 I PK, J wP 36688 2024 2- every consecutive academic years and the petitioner is also discharging his rluties as Assistant Professor as Guest hculty on hourly basis in the Department of Dance (Kuchipudi)' While so' on 11.12.2024, respondent No.2 herein has appointed all tl-re retired employees 25 Qrrest Faculty to work on hourly basis' except the petitioner. Though the petitioner made a represen tation to respondent No.2 on 13.12.2024 seeking to consider his case for appointment as Guest faculty to work on hourly basis on par with other similarly situated retired empioyees, no action has t'een taken thereon. Therefcre, the learned counsel prayed this Court to direct respondent No.2 to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated time duly taking into consideration the fact that similarly situateri retired employees were appointed as Gues;t facuity' 5) Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as there is no requirement of the services of the Guest fac ulty in the department of tlance (Kuchipudi), the services of the petitroner could not be re-engaged.

However, the learned Standing CounseL submitted that respondent- No.2 will consider the case of the petitioner as and when his servicr:s are required. 6) Having regard to the above made submissions' wi:hout going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner clated 13.12.2024, strictly in accordance u'ith law and I I -3 PK, J wP 3668A_2024 duly taking into consideration the appointment of similarly situated retired persons vide proceedings No.pSRTU /pa7 /T/VpKS/cp/AVKp/ 2024-25, dated 17.12.2024, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / 0t SECTION OFFICER To,