Back
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH N.
Dornadula Sai Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
(R. Raghunandan Rao, J.)
Heard Sri G. V. Shivaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This Court had initially heard three writ petitions together, viz.., W.P.Nos.32917, 36206 and 38372 of 2022. Though there are common issues raised in these writ petitions, certain additional issues were raised in W.P.No.38372 of 2022 and the same shall be taken up separately.
3. As the issues raised in W.P.Nos.32917 and 36206 of 2022 are one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.
4. The erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh of the combined State had issued G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 31.03.2011, accepting a proposal sent by the Registrar General of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for sanction of 140 Special Magistrate Courts (Civil Junior Division) and 113 Judicial Magistrate of II Class/Special Metropolitan Magistrate Courts (Morning Courts). These courts were to be run for a specified period of time as the intention of creating these Special Magistrate Courts was for the purpose of reduction of pendency of cases and such Magistrate Courts were to be close
Contract employees appointed through a transparent selection process are entitled to regularization, aligning with principles of equality and fair treatment in public employment.
Regularization of temporary staff in judiciary is prohibited if appointments are deemed illegal under relevant legislation, emphasizing the necessity of proper recruitment procedures.
Irregular appointments made by competent authorities can be regularized if employees have served for over ten years, emphasizing the need for pragmatic interpretation of rules.
The court ruled that contract employees with over ten years of service against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes and age relaxation ....
Point of law: It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. That being so, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribuna....
Appointees for a limited purpose and on contract basis are not entitled to regularization.
In order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under t....
Regularisation – No such direction can be issued by High Court for absorption/regularisation of employees who were appointed in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project and that to....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
