Back
D. V. S. S. SOMAYAJULU
S. Sudhamani – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the writ petitions questioning notification. (Para 1 , 2 , 8) |
| 2. contenders claim entitlement to regularization. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. state's defense against regularization claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. requirements for regularization established. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. court’s directive regarding 4% reservation for physically challenged. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 6. final decisions on the writ petitions. (Para 30 , 31) |
ORDER :
1. The batch of writ petitions have been filed before this Court questioning the notification that has been issued on 31.12.2018 (Notification dated 23 of 2018) by the APPSC for recruitment to the post of Polytechnic lecturers/workshop attendants.
2. The entire batch was taken up for hearing together.
3. In WP.No.4703 of 2020, there are 33 petitioners. According to them, they all have been rendering service as contract lecturers in various Government Polytechnics in the State. It is contended that all of them are validly recruited and have been rendering continuous service for more than 10 years. Hence, they argue that they are entitled to regularization in the category of lecturers, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’
Point of Law : The appointment of such an employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed d....
Temporary or contractual employees lack legal entitlement to regularization unless appointed through lawful selection processes as established by precedent.
Temporary employees lack a legal right to regularization unless appointed per relevant rules; participation in selection waives claims for regularization.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioners' service should have been regularized as they were engaged against sanctioned posts by following due process of selection and ....
Since there are no sanctioned posts on which any of these petitioners were appointed as irregular appointments, no such directions are warranted.
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....
Long service on a contractual basis does not confer a legal right to regularization without a formal scheme in place, as established by Supreme Court precedents.
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
