Fi High Court · 2025

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus- a) To decrare the action of the Respondents in not regurarizing the petitioner services as was done in simirarry praced persons as irregar, arbitrary and violative of Articre 14,.r6 and 21 0f the constitution of lndia b) to Decrare that the petitioner is entired and erigibre for regurarization wrth effect from 01-12-1997 with all consequential benefits .id,r;;;;" respondents to regurarize the petitioner services with effect from 01-.12-1gg7 with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice "nO l.A. NO: 1 OF2017(WPMP. NO:2750 OF 20'17l Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circuntstances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition' the High Court ma'7 be pleased to issue a direction to tre respondents to consider the representalion daled 27'12' 2016 of the petiticn:: pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of Justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' BETHAMACHARLA SAI HARITHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 1to3: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the ResPondent No'4:- The Court made the following: ORDER !' I I ! ' I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 235O ofZOL7 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "to issue appropiate Wit or ang other order or direction particilarlg one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) To declare the action of the Respondents in not regulari-z,ing the petitioner seruices as u)as done in similarlg placed persons as illegal, arbitrary and uiolatiue of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. b) to Declare thctt the petitioner is entitled and eligible for regulartzation uith effect from O1.12.1997 uith all consequential benefits and c direct the respondents to regulaize the petitioner seruices tuith effect from O1.12.1997 utith all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. "

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an Attender in Lateefia Arabic College, Mogalpura, Hyderabad, on a consolidated salar5z in 1988. He has been continuously rendering his services for over 29 years without any complaints. He contends that a sanctioned post of Attender feil vacant on O 1. l2.l997 due to the promotion of an incumbent and that he has been working against the said post. The respondent college, a minority institution, forwarded proposals for his regularization, i I l l / I l i l j I I t I I I I i 1 L 2 r,r,hich 'trrere ,:rlnsidered by the Government but remained pencling dtle 1-o administrative delays Further casr: of the petitioner is li-rat he is entitled to reguiarizatior' under G.O.Ms.No.212 clated 22'O4'Igg4' which provides lor the regularization of emploYees aPPointecl pay who continued in service as of further relies on various juclgments' 25.11.1993. He including A. Manjula Bhashini v' State of A'P" R'L' Kesariv.StateofKarnataka,andUmadeviv.Stateof \^'age / consclidated Karnataka,-whereintheHon,lcleSupremeCourt]-reldthat sulfer ,:1ue to long-servtn11 e mployees should not aclministral ive delays in regularization' Le:Lrned Government Pleader for Services-l oppose 3. the w'rit pr:r'ition on the grounds that the petitioner was appointecl privately, without following due pro':ess' and that G.O.lrAs.No.212 is not applicable to him as Lateelta Arabic Ccllege is not a government-owned in stitution' Learnecl Covernment Pleader also contend that rl blanket ban on recruitment in aided institutions wa:; imposed under C,.'J.Ms.No'35 dated 27'03'2OO6 altd tlrat aided degree collrses are no longer conducted in the college'

4. Upon a careful perusal of the records, it is evident that the petitioner has been in continuous service since 1988 and that the college submitted multiple proposals for his regularization ald he meets the eligibility criteria under G.O.Ms.No.212 as he has completed more than hve years of service before the cutoff date of 25.71 .1993. It may be { I noted that in Writ Petition No. 13772 of 2O08, this Court held that employees fulhlling the conditions under , I G.O.Ms.No.2 12 were entitled to regularization, irrespective of their designation as contingent workers. Further, in M.L. Singhts case, the Hon'lcle Supreme Court upheld retrospective regularization from the date of eligibility. The inaction of the respondents, despite the petitioner's clear entitlement and the settied legal position, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court finds merit in the petitioner's claim for regularization.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders regularizing the service of the petitioner, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.2l2, dated 22.O4.1994 within a period of I I 4 four weeks flom the date of receipt of a copy of this order' It is rnacle t:lean that the petitioner shali be elig'ible for notiona l be'nefits only, and sha1l not clai.r r any retrospective monetary benefits on account of this order' No costs. Ir{iscellaneous applications, pending if artrr' shall stand clos(d. , That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above *'*"i'u.'r?Erl1?*o"if JF=|\[iH's'li'H'"'Llj""i'[S'Rft lill'un[1oAk"' //rRuE coPY/' AssrSiA$rvR?3't+RiR \\ iJ'b;inoN oFFtcER To' 1 The Principa Secretary' Higher Education Depa " t:lll*r:1idon"l. ot colliesiate Education Government of lelansana '" ' - rr"^'+i''n Denartment' Secretariat Buildings" I ffffi{@[;il#fi****i*il;",, BM BS i , l Iirl\l\I 1 l 1 l t HIGH COURT DATED:1310312025 ORDER WP.No.2350 of 2017 CC TODAY i s';, I o t1 sNI E oni s '7 )i .j: + +- ':-,- THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ALLOWING {A ET,T* I I I i I I I I I i a I i ' :