Regularization of temporary staff in judiciary is prohibited if appointments are deemed illegal under relevant legislation, emphasizing the necessity of proper recruitment procedures.

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. Judicial Ministerial Services or, in case of non-availability of retired employees, eligible candidates strictly on contract basis. Accordingly, the staff for running these Special Magistrate Courts were recruited and have been working in the Special Magistrate Courts.

4. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are persons who had been recruited as staff, on contract basis, in all these Special Magistrate Courts. They have approached this Court seeking regularization of their services and their absorption as permanent employees of the Courts.

5. In an earlier round of litigation, another set of such persons, who were similarly situated, had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.36206 of 2022 and W.P.No.32917 of 2022. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order, dated 31.07.2024, had allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents, therein, to regularize the services of the petitioners, on the same lines as that of contract employees of Fast Track Courts. The appeal filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, against this order, came to be dismissed and subsequently such persons have also been regularized in service.

6. The petitioners, in the present set of cases, seek parity with the petitioners in W.P.No.32917 of 2022 and 36206 of 2022. The petitioners herein, contend that they have been working for a very long period of time spanning, in some cases more than 12 to 13 years, and that they are entitled for regularization of services.

7. These Writ Petitions are resisted by the respondents on the following grounds:

1) Regularization can be made, where persons are temporarily recruited, against existing vacancies, which is not the case here;

2) Provisions of Act 2 of 1994 prohibit such regularisation;

3) The prohibition in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors., vs. Umadevi and Ors. , (2006) 4 SCC 1 restricting such regularization would apply to the present case also. In Umadevi's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had distinguished between illegal appointments and irregular appointment and, while prohibiting regularization of illegal appointments, had permitted regularization of irregular appointments, on a one-time basis. The petitioners herein, are not irregular appointments but illegal appointments done without following the necessary procedure of recruitment.

8. The Andhra Pradesh (Regularization of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 was enacted for the purposes of regulating appointments and prohibiting irregular appointments, including regularization of such appointments in relation to various establishments. Section 3 prohibits appointment on daily wage basis or temporary appointments in any Public Services. Section 7 bars regularisation of services of daily wage e