Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(AP) 890

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Kiranmayee Mandava, J.
Bollavaram Giddaiah and Others – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos: 15006 of 2021, 36046, 35754, 35755 of 2014, 38052, 38181 of 2016, 19754, 19113, 19118 of 2017 and 30458 of 2018
Decided On : 27-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Subramanyam Daraboina
For the Respondent: Mahesh Kumar Kancharla, GP

The principle of equal pay for equal work applies where employees perform similar duties regardless of their appointment method; individual assessments are required for regularization claims.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Right to Equality - Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work - The petitioners sought absorption in aided vacancies in the respondent college, claimed unfair treatment despite performing similar duties as regular lecturers. The Government had imposed a ban on recruitments, leading to appointments on a consolidated basis. The Government's refusal was based on the claim that appointments were not made through a formal selection process and designated cut-off dates for regularization. The court emphasized the mandate for equal pay and noted that the college's consistent correspondence for the regularization since 2011 could not be overlooked. (Paras 8-14)

(B) Regularization of Service - Regularization cannot be granted as a matter of course; each case must be assessed individually based on merits and terms of employment. (Paras 11-12)

Facts of the case:
Ten writ petitions were filed by petitioners appointed as lecturers in backlog vacancies reserved for SC-ST candidates, on consolidated pay, seeking absorption into regular posts. The petitioners contended that they performed duties similar to regular lecturers despite wrongful claim of non-selection by the college management.

Findings of Court:
Petitioners to submit individual applications for absorption into aided positions; if not eligible, they shall be granted minimum time scale from three years prior to the filing of the petitions.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the petitioners' appointments and the applicability of existing laws regarding regularization.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that equal work demands equal pay and that the government should consider past correspondence regarding the regularization of services.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of as directed with no order for costs.

Table of Content
1. absorption request for aided vacancies. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. contentions on appointment and pay scale. (Para 6 , 8 , 9)
3. conditions for regularization of services. (Para 7 , 11)
4. equal pay for equal work principle. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. court's directive for individual applications. (Para 15)

ORDER :

Kiranmayee Mandava, J.

Heard Sri Subramanyam Daraboina, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for School Education and Sri Mahesh Kumar Kancharla, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent.

2. The issue involved in all these ten writ petitions is common, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of all the writ petitions through this common order.

3. The relief sought by the writ petitioners in the writ petition is for a direction to the 1^st to 5^th respondents to absorb the services of the petitioners against the aided vacancies in the respondent college.

4. The petitioners were appointed as lecturers in 5^th respondent college by the appointment committee of the said college. The said appointment was pursuant to the advertisement given in the newspapers. All the petitioners were appointed in backlog vacancies reserved for SC-ST candidates. The details of their appointment i.e., the date of appointment of the petitioners in all the writ petitions, are as follows:

Sl. No.	W.P.No.	Petitioners Name	Date of Appointment
1.	WP/15006/2021	1. Bollavaram Giddaiah	1. Lecturer in Telugu since 16/06/2012
1.	WP/15006/2021	2. Nakkili Rojamma	2. Lecturer in Political Science since 03/08/2015
2.	WP 35754/2014	1.S. Suneetha Rose	Lecturer in English since 01/07/2004
3.	WP/35755/2014	1. N. Sai Nirmala	Lecturer in Commerce since 01/08/2006
4.	WP/36046/2014	1. Smt. U.L. Vijaya Kumari	Lecturer in Telugu since 24/09/1993
5.	WP/38052/2016	1. K.V. Santha Kumari	Lecturer in Computer since 07/09/1995
6.	WP/38181/2016	1. G. Margaret Rose	Lecturer in Commerce since 10/07/1998
7.	WP/19113/2017	1. Baki Sowjanya Shilpa	Lecturer in Commerce since 04/08/2007
8.	WP/19118/2017	1. Mrs. Bankala Dhanyavathi	Lecturer in Commerce since 27/08/2008
9.	WP/19754/2017	1. Mrs. V. Suneetha	Lecturer in Political Science since 02/07/2008
	10. WP/30458/2018	1. S. Soba Monica	Lecturer in Computer Science since 27/08/2009

5. It is contended that the petitioners have been working as lecturers in different subjects in the respondent college on consolidated pay. The petitioners were appointed in an aided vacancy as unaided lecturers in the backlog vacancies reserved for SCs, and their selection was made through proper selection procedure by the appointing committee after an advertisement was issued in the newspaper. It is further contended that the Government, as long back as in 2001 vide proceedings dated 18.09.2001, directed the Director of Collegiate Education to verify the communal roster books/registers of the list of colleges, annexed to the said proceedings, identify the backlog vacancies of SCs/STs of teaching and non-teaching staff with effect from 10.03.1999, to enable the department to accord necessary permission to the management of colleges concerned, to fill up the posts of backlog vacancies of SCs/STs in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.214 dated 08.05.2001, the respondent college is shown at Sl.No.29 in the said list. Thus, the appointment of the petitioners is stated to against aided vacancies.

6. It is contended by the petitioners that the services of the petitioners are the same or similar to that of the services of lecturers appointed through the regular selection process. It is further stated that the petitioners, apart from discharging regular teaching duties, have also been assigned with correction of answer sheets of the degree examinations. When there is no dissimilarity between the discharge of duties by the lecturers appointed by following a regular selection process and the petitioners, and when their appointment is also against the aided vacancy, the petitioners should not be denied the benefits of pay scale attached to the post of the aided post. Since a ban was imposed on the recruitm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document