Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, T.C.D.SEKHAR
R. Sreedevi, D/O R.Pandu Rangaiah – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Law (La And J) Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. creation of special magistrate courts and recruitment on contract basis. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. previous precedent supports claims for regularization. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. prohibition of regularization under act 2 of 1994. (Para 8 , 9 , 16) |
| 4. applicability of act 2 of 1994 to judicial appointments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. misclassification of appointments as illegal versus irregular. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. final dismissal of writ petitions. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.
Heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, Sri P. Rajasekhar, Sri Pardha Saradhi A.V, Ms. Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri N.V. Sumanth and Smt. B. Vasantha Lakshmi, the learned Standing Counsels for the respondents.
2. As the issues raised in all these Writ Petitions are common, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order.
3. At the request of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had sanctioned 140 Special Magistrate Courts (Civil Junior Division) and 113 Judicial Magistrate of II Class/Special Magistrate Courts (Morning Courts). These Special Magistrate Courts were to be maintained by staff recruited from retired employees of the A.P. Judic
Regularization of temporary staff in judiciary is prohibited if appointments are deemed illegal under relevant legislation, emphasizing the necessity of proper recruitment procedures.
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 services for employees who have served for over ten years is a right that must be considered by the state, provided there are no valid objections, and the state must adhere to its o....
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.
Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.
The court ruled that employees engaged continuously for over ten years are entitled to regularization, regardless of irregular appointment status, reaffirming precedents from the Supreme Court highli....
Long-term, continuous service in sanctioned posts must be considered for regularisation as per judicial precedents, regardless of procedural irregularities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to regularization after completing ten years of service on sanctioned and vacant posts, as supported by constitutional....
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
