High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated ,n the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lt/andamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings vide Lr. No. Estt.30(1 )/201 7/Recruitment, dated 21-09-2017 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners in 30 Watch and Ward Post - which are notified rn adve(isement No. Rec./HydlCat.lV 10112017, dated 22.07.2017 in respect to Telangana State. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO:44654 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rl'ray be pleased to direct the respondents lo reserve the 30 posts/ not to fill up 30 posts of Watch and Ward posts in respect to Telangana State in aclvertisement No- Rec./Hyd/Cat.lV 10112017, dated 22.O7.2017 pending disposal of Writ Petition. t ,-" l.A. NO:2 OF 2017(WPM P. NO: 446s5 0F 2017) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the proceedings vide Lr. No. Estt.30( 1 )/2017lRecruitment, dated 21 09 2017 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposar of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI pASHAM SRINIVASULU, REp. FOR SRI B.G.RAVINDER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER t 1l 1 :'1 HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO. 35 945 0F 2017 ORDER: Petirioncrs claim lo have been appointed in 1985 and 1986 as Casual labour at MRM (Modern Rice Mill)' Miryalaguda set up by the Rcspondent Corporation They u'ere directly employed by the Corporation on daily wage basis and there were mort: than 3O0 employees u'ho were performing the jobs of sweepir-rg the godou'ns, putting covers, bagging the splitage from godou'ns, operators, mobbing, drying of paddy' fumigation Purpose etc. It is stated, on closure of mill in 1993, petitioners 1. I were terminateci, hence, they agitated the issue before the Respondents. Basing upon the instructions of the head ofhce' all the Petitioners were again reinstated into service in 1995 and they were posted at food sloragc depot/buffer storage complex and continued till 2OO5 without any break and they were removed from services. It is stated, most of the employees who were working along with petilioners u'ere observed ttnder direct payment system as introduced by the Respondents' Again Petitioners were reinstated into service in 2009 antl continued II \ 't ,i 2 t1l1 20 15 without any break in service. It is submitted that all these employees were disengaged in December 2O15.

1.2 It is stated that all the employees working along with Petitioners were absorbed into Class IV employees through direct payment system except 48 employees including the Petitioners. Among 48 mcmbers 9 members died and 8 members are inactive mcmbers. Therefore at present, Petitioners are fighting out Lhe litigation. It is the grievance of petitioners that basing on the seniority and vacancy position, respondents have been absorbing casual labour and except these petitioners, all the other casual labours were absorbed.

1.3 Respondent Corporation, according to petitioners, issued Circuiar dated 17-O5-2O13 stating that ttrey were in the process of filling up vacant securiqr posts in respgctive zones and regions and preference would be given to erstwhile contractual watch and ward personnel duly giving relaxation in respect of upper age limit and academic qualihcation and other than technical qualihcations at the time of recruitment. It was further stated that any casual employee engaged in FCI in any capacity and working as on 31-12-2012, was eligibie for being given preference during this recruitment. Thereafter, t t ) -) Respondents issucd letter dated 18 07 2Ol3 stating that the matter was untler consideration for providing employmenl to petitioners, followed by another letter dated 26-07 -2013 stating that Circular dated 17 05-2013 was kept in abeyance' When petitioners faile,l to get answer, they approached AC L (Ccntral) by way of conciliation, during which, the 4tl' Respondent addressed the letter that Circular dated 17 05-2013 u'as kept in abeyance and thelr are waiting for furthcr instructions from the Head Office. It is also stated, in vieu' of the letter dated 1.4 19 O1 2015, the conciliation proceedings belore the ACL (Central) was deferred and the 1st Respondent issued the letter dated 23-01-2()15 directing Respondents 3 and 4 to furnish details of casual workers working as on that particular datc' Accordingly, the 4fr Respondent furnished the details of petitioners worl<ing as on that date. The'3'd respondent issued letter dated 13 O4-2O 15 clarifying that Petitioners' case would be considered as and when Circular dated 17 O5-2O13 is implemented. Ilespondent - Corporation also issut:d sanction order dated 27 -06-2016 wherein AP total number c'f vacancies was notified as 364 for watch and ward posts. Therefore it is \ \ 't t. 4 very clear lhat there are vacancies for appointment to the post of watch and ward category. The 3 respondent issued letter dated 08-08-2016 stating that persons, who were working in FCI as on 3l-12-2O12 would be given preference while filling up Of vacancies. During the pendency of the same, respondent _ corporation was pleased [o issue notification/ advertisement dated 22-07-2017 for appointmcnt lo rhe post of Watchman lor manning in its depots in Andhra pradesh, Telangana etcetera. In Telangana, total vacancies arc 1O1. According to petitioner, the action of Respondcnts in issuing the notification for recruitment of watchman without answering and considering their recruitment as u,atchman in pursuance ol. the circular issued by the Corporation is illegal and violaiion of 25 (H) of I.D.Act.

1.5 t The lsr Respondent called for the 4etails of Petitioners for recruitment to the post of Watch and Ward in Telangana; antecedents and service records were verified and finally came to the conclusion that petitioners, cases would be considered as and when recruitment takes place pursuant to the Circular dated 17.OS.20 13 and the same was stated before the conciliation office (ACL central) and now this notification I \ ) ) issued by the respondent is contrary to the circular and various letters issued to Petitioners and other responsible authorities' Petit-ioners served FCI in various capacities of Class

1.6 IV cmployees fc,r more than 25 years .onti.,,ousl1" but their cases were not considered to the post of watchman and ward and security. Aggrieved by lhe inaction of respondents, petitioners ltled Writ Petition No. 26276 of 2Ol7 which was clisposed of by order dated 07.O8-2O17 , dirt:cting the respondents to consider the case of pelitioners for allpoinlment to the Security, Watch and Ward posts noLifi':d in the notillcation dat,ed 22.O7.2O17 pursuant to Circular, dated 1,7.O5.2013, as expeditiously as possible. Howevt:r, the 3'd respondent passed order dated 21.09.2077, impugned in this Writ Petition, rejecting the case of petitioners on the Siround that Circular/letter dated 17.O5.2O13 is not in force. Tl-re! further stated that as per Circulars dated 04.01.2O13, 07 t18'2014 as per the letter dated 19.08.2016, petitioners are not eligible for appointment to the post of Watch and Ward.

2. In the counter liled on behaif of Food Corporation of India, it is statcd that Circular dated 17-05.20 13 is not in force in view of FCI tlqrs. Letter dated 04.O7.2013. All the petitioners I I \ \ \ 6 made false declarations and submitted incorrect information, which is evident from their own admissions made in the affidavit and the documents filed along with Writ petition, hence they are not entitled to claim any relief. It is stated, pursuant to the order in Writ Petition No.2627 6 of 2OlZ , Corporation passed impugned order to the eftect that petitioners respondent are not eligible for appointment to the post of Watchman and their cases are rejected.

2.1 It is also stated, petitioners \\rere engaged by the Societlz to perform activities such as sweeping the godowns, putting covers, bagging the splitage from godowns, operations, mobbing, drying of paddy, fumigation purpose etc. They never worked under the FCI at any point of time, in any capacity. Petitioners worked as contract labourers dependilg upon the availability of work and subject to the discretion of ttie contract or under whom . the petitioners worked. provident Fund deductions were made by Hamali Co-op. Society, Miryalaguda being their employer and not by the respondent corporation. I'

2.2 It is stated, though the two depots functioning under the administrative control of District Office, Nalgonda come under non-notified depots, but due to demands of labour I / 7 unions, the erstwhile Hamali Co-operative Society labourers r,vere inducted iIt two categories of Handling Labor and Ancillary Labour under FCI Direct Payment System(DPS) for performing Handiirrg and Ancillary operations considering their seniority in the said society, duly following the eligibility norms stipuiated b-y the FCl, Flqrs, New Delhi and they are not considered as Category IV r:mployees by the respondent corporation' Petitioners were not inducted by the corporation's Direct Payment Systenr labour as they were not eligible. Tht: induction of DPS vvorkers was done by following the eligibilify criteria set out by FCI, Hqrs, New Delhi in 2OO3 and no further induction of DPS labors has taken place thereafter at FCI, DO, Nalgonda' The DPS labourers cannot be called as Class-lV empllyees'

2.3 It is stated, the 3'd respondent issued Notif-rcation daLed 22.07 .2O L7 lor hlling up 273 vacancies of watChman as per the existing rules in vogue. The requdst of petitioners is not considered as the circular dated 17.O5.2O13 was kept in abeyance by the respondent Corporation uide letter dzlted

04.O7.2073 which was communicated to the Deputy Chairman, APLC bv le tter clated 26.O7 .2OI3. I I I 1I f, I' 8

3. Petitioners filed rejoinder denying the averments of the counter. It is stated, FCI Hamali Co operative Society, Miryalguda was formed way back in l98os by the FCI management itself. There were more than 450 persons working as hamalis in various FCI godowns in Miryalguda on behalf of the Society. Petitioners were among this 450 persons working as Hamalis in respondent organisation through hamali society and lrom the date of their appointment, the provident fund amount was being deducted regularly. While so, various reprcsen[ations were made throughout the country for regularization of Hamalis, in view of the same, the respondent introduced DpS (Direct Payment System) in 2003 only for Hamalis who were working through Society; as per DpS, hamalis were guaranteed with minimum wages and temporary status in FCI.,Accordingly the management took 27O hamalis of the society members under DPS in 2OO3 and other leftover hamalis were kcpt in abeyance including petitioners with an assurance that their cases would be considered as and when vacancies arise in class IV employment. The circular dt.O4_O7 20 l3 and the DpS introdruced- by the respondent was only to Lhe members of the Hr-at" society. Though petitioners worked under Hamali Co- 9 operative Societl', Miryatguda, the Society was managed by the peti[ioners hert:in. It is submitted that the said society was acting as mrdcll,: man in between petitioner and the respondent only to sec lhat, lhere is no direct relationship between the emplovees ancl employer. it is submitted that the petitioners herein r,r'orkecl in different capacities in the respondent Food Corporation ol India directly controlled by the respondents' The allegation th:11 petitioners herein worked depending upon the avaitabititl ol rhe work and subject to the discretion of the Contract or ur dcr whom the petitioners Worked is incorrect Respondcnt intcnrionally denied petitioners under DPS without assuming an\- reason as the question of not considering does not arise becatrse they were seniors, working as hatnalis as on 2003 and lher",r'ere locals. There is no reason in not considering t them under the DPS. '

3. 1 It is iurther stated, except Saying that Circular is kept in abe1,'211t1;g, there is no document or proof to show that, in fact, impugnecl order was passed to throttle the claim of petitioners b], referring unconnected circulars' Finally, it is stated, the vacirncies in respect to notification dated 22-07 2Ol7 have not been filed in view of the pendency of this case. I l0 - 1 - {_3rrt

4. Heard Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learnecl counsel for \ I petitioners. He contends that there is no such proceedings or circulars issued by the respondent withdrawing circular dated 17.O5.2013. Respondents relied upon the letter datecl 19.08.20 16 which is in respect to recruitment of Watch and Ward. The respondent further relied upon the ofhce order dated 25.O9 .2016 in the said letter th€ petitioners, case for considering their appointment was pleased to issue office memorandum in respect to Junior level posts in the (iovernment of India ad their recommendations ol the committee of Secretaries. It is submitted that neithcr it is binding on the FCI nor it has referred to proceedings of the respondent dated 2l.O9.2OlZ .

4.1 It is submitted that Circular dated 04.0,1.2O13 is in respect to constitution of selection committee for appointing category 3 & 4 posts. Under the Circular dared O4.O 1.2O 13, certain committees were constituted for promotions for all the categories. Therefore, the said circular is also nothing to do with Lhe present case. Circular dated 07.Oa.2O14 is in respect of SC, ST and BC and Minorities and Women on the seleclion board/committee. None of the above circulars shows that t, f, circular dated 17.O5.20 13 has been withdrawn or kept in abeyance lor the purpose of rejecting the petitioners' case' It is submittcd rhert therc is no reason for the respondent to deny the petitioners' claim vierved from any angle.

4.2 Lezrrned counsel reliecl on the .ludgrrrent of the Hon'ble Suprenre Courl in Durgapur Casual Workers Union u. Food Corporation o.f Indic' in support of his case.

5. Hearcl Sri Pasham Srinivasulu, learned counsel representing Sri B.G. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for responden ts.

6. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the re,:ord, it may be noted that previously, petitioners approacht:cl this Court in Writ Petition No. 26276 of 2Ol7 assailing the ;rction of respondent-authorities in issuing the Notification clare<I 22.O7.2O17 for hiling up of Watch tsnd Ward vacancies, instead of regularizing them against those vacancies, as per Circular clated 17.O5.2O13, and this Court directed to consider the claim of petitioners and pass appropriate orders' Subsequentlr'', respondentauthorities passed the impugned Orders rejecting the case of petitioners. ' (20 t5) i scc 784) \ I ,i 12

7. It is to be noted that it is the specific contention of rcsponden l-authorities in the counter, based on records, that in vierv of the FCI Letter dated O4.OT.2Ol3, Circular dared

17.05.2013 is no[ in force and the same was communicated to the Deputy Chairman, APLC by letter dated 26.O2 .2013. Though it is [he contention of petitioners that the FCI Hamali Cooperative Society, Miryalguda was formed way back in 19gos and various representations were made throughout the country for regularizalion of Hamalis, and, 2ZO hamalis who are members of Hamalis Society under Direct payment System u,ere considered by the respondent-Corporation ancl petitioners are left out hamalis, the fact remains that 2TO hamalis, who were members under Direct Payment System and members of Hamalis Society, were considered by the ,respondent_ Corporation, and thereafter Circular dated 17.05.'20 13 *,.," dirccted to be kept in abeyance, thereby not in force. It is not the case of pelitioners that Circular dated 17.05.2013 was in force but their case was not considered.

8. The case put forth by petitioners that respondent Corporation is duty-bound to consider their candidature on par Iwlt\ other 270 hamalis, is a misconceived grievance. It is clear l, q fromtheletteriated04.oT.2ol3issuedbytheGeneralManager (P&lR), FCI, tl-rat thc process o[ recruitment of Watch & Ward Scaff bc kept in abcvance till receipt of further instructions from FCI Headquarters. F'urther, the consideration of candidatures lor Watch & Ward staff was under [he Circular dated 16l17.Oj.2Ol3, and thcrefore when the recruitment process was di|ectcd to be kept in abeyance, it cannot be said that Circular ciatcd 16/ 17 05-20 13 too needs to be explicitly kept in abeyan,:e; for, n'hen the recruitment process itself was kept in abeyan<:e, it goes u'ithout saying that Circulzrr is also in abeyance. When it is the matter ol policy decision of respondent-Corporation with regard to recruitmellt process' petitioners carrnot have grievance against the impugned Notification m,:rely becausc lhey were allegedly assured of consideration try lhe Corporation at a later date Further, it is not the case ,lf petitioners that respohdent-Corporation has utilized thc st:rvices of petitioners for decades and denied regularizatiot'r on arbitrary grounds ln that vier,' of the matter' the impugr-red ,a.ction of respondent-Corporation in rejecting the candidature o1' petitioners on the ground of Cirr:ular dated ,l ,A l4 16/17.O5.2013 not in force, can neither be illegal nor arbitrary, and therefore the w'rit petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The Writ pctition is accordingly, dismissecl. No costs- 10 closed. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stancl //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G- SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 One CC to SRI G.RAVI IVIOHAN, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI B G.RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies BSR BS W t, HIGH COURT NBKJ DATED: 1310812025 I -\ 1r i- t' 22 $P il6 f,' .; ORDER WP.No.35945 of 2017 DISMISS!NG THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ! .rA $ \