IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
L.Adiseshu Babu, S/o Satyanarayana - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Andhra pradesh by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Velagapudi - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 128 Of 2018
Decided On : 12-05-2023
Regularisation - Services - G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 - Summary of Acts and Sections: G.O.Ms.No.212 (Finance & Planning) Department, dated 22.04.1994 - The court discussed the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.212 and its applicability to the petitioner's case. It also referenced the judgment in B.Srinivasulu Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation and Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University Vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela to support the petitioner's entitlement for regularisation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regularisation of his services as a Record Assistant in a college, citing G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. The respondents contested the regularisation, citing irregular appointment and lack of sanctioned posts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's service as a Record Assistant since 1984 and the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.212 entitled him to regularisation. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to regularisation from the date of completing five years of service, as per the permission granted by the Competent Authority.
Issues: The issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.212 and the date for regularisation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.212 and referenced judgments in B.Srinivasulu Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation and Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University Vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela to support the petitioner's entitlement for regularisation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to approve the absorption of the petitioner's services from 19.02.1991 with all consequential benefits, including pension and pensionary benefits, within three months.
ORDER :
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as Laboratory Record Assistant on temporary basis by the Management of Respondent No.3 on consolidated pay w.e.f 23.04.1985. The bone of contention of the petitioner is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.212 (Finance & Planning) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and formed a policy that for regularisation and absorption of employees who were appointed as daily wage/NMRs/ temporary in nature and such persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and are continuing as on 25.11.1993 subject to certain conditions. The writ petitioner filed the present writ petition to declare the action of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not regularising his services as Record Assistant in Respondent No.3 College is illegal and arbitrary and direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to regularize the services of the petitioner as Record Assistant in the College of Respondent No.3 from the date of his appointment.
3. Respondent No.2 Commissioner of Intermediate Education filed Counter Affidavit wherein he submitted that the petitioner had been engaged on temporary basis in the Respondent No.3 college on consolidated pay without obtaining prior permission and without following due procedure of selection. He was engaged purely on consolidated pay by the management and without any prior permission of the Competent Authority. Thus, the individual was engaged on temporary basis in contravention of the Rules stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.1119, Education (J) Department, dated 18.12.1976 and his remuneration is being paid out of the management funds but not from the consolidated funds of the Government. Moreover, the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Record Assistant is not against any sanctioned post.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education further submits that the petitioner herein approached this Court after delay of several years for regularisation of his services is liable for rejection on the ground of delay and latches. He further submits that in view of the G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 06.04.2021 issued by the Higher Education under which a Committee was constituted to consider the similar cases at grant-in-aid institutions. But the committee submitted its report stating that there is no necessity to extend grant-in-aid any further to Private Educational institutions in the State and accordingly in view of that report the petitioner is not entitled for absorption under the scheme of regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994.
5. He further submits that the petitioner does not fall under the ambit of G.O.Ms.No.212 (Finance & Planning) Department, dated 22.04.1994, since he had been engaged by the management on temporary basis. It is also submits that unless the appointment is made in accordance with the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1119 Education (J) Department, dated 18.12.1996, scrupulously under the intimation and approvals of the competent authorities, the Government scale/Aided cannot be granted to the college management on engagement on temporary basis.
6. It is also submitted that the Respondent No.3 had surrendered the sanctioned aided posts along with the aided staff to the Government and at present there are no vacancies available
District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480
Surendra Kumar Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority
Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P.
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Surendra Kumar
State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa
R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah
B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, and the applicability of this provision to the petitioner's case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to regularization and absorption in sanctioned posts after working for more than ten years without the benefit or prot....
Regular appointments should be made through open competitive processes against sanctioned vacant posts, and part-time temporary employees are not entitled to seek regularization or parity in pay with....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's long service as a Trained Graduate Teacher against a substantive vacant post and the Government's decision to declare the non....
Temporary or casual employment does not confer legal rights to regularization; adherence to proper recruitment processes is mandatory for permanent appointments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.