Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Telangana) 184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA : HYDERABAD
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, T.AMARNATH GOUD, JJ.
C. Mahender and others – Appellants
Versus
Pottisreeramulu Telugu University, Hyderabad rep by its Registrar, Public Gardens, Hyderabad and others - Respondents
Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2020 in Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.23057 of 2019 and Writ Petition No.23057 of 2019
Decided on : 21-04-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri P.V.Ramana
For the Respondent: Sri K.Ram Murthy, Sri P.Govind Reddy

Point of Law :
In Uma Devi (1 supra), the Supreme Court has held that any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme and a sovereign Government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages.

Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014 - Employment and Service matter - Posts of Attenders - Rejection of claims for regularization of services on ‘One-Time’ basis - Impugned orders passed by 1st respondent rejecting cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one-time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution, respondents are directed to regularize on one-time basis petitioners’ services from date each of petitioners complete 10 years of service on daily wages from initial dates of their appointment
Facts of the case: Petitioners, they were continuously discharging their duties in the posts of Attenders against the sanctioned posts with all required qualifications as on date of filing of Writ Petition, and that they were also extended minimum time-scale without increments from the year 2000 - In 2000, according to petitioners, a Selection Committee constituted by Vice-Chancellor of 1st respondent-University for filling up vacancies in ‘Clerical and Class-IV’ categories conducted a meeting with three Members, and after considering category, strength, qualifications and the period of working, said Committee made recommendations for regularization of services of six petitioners also.
Finding of the court: It is not known why 1st respondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi (1 supra) as explained in M.L. Kesari (3 supra) and undertaken a one-time exercise of preparing list of daily wage employees who had worked for more than ten (10) years without intervention of Courts and Tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess requisite qualifications for posts, and if so, regularize their services - Legal position explained above we are satisfied that petitioners are entitled to the relief of regularization of services and action of 1st respondent-University in rejecting their claims for regularization of their services through the impugned orders passed cannot be sustained.
Result: Writ Petition is allowed.

ORDER :

(Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)

The petitioners herein who are five in number have filed the present Writ Petition against the Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University, Hyderabad, the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the separate but identical orders passed by the said University on 20.08.2019 in respect of each of the petitioners, rejecting their claims for regularization of services on ‘One-Time’ basis.

The background facts

2. The 1st petitioner belongs to ‘BC-A’ Community and was initially engaged on daily wage basis in the 1st respondent-University as Office Subordinate/Attender on 03.01.1990; the 2nd petitioner also belongs to the same Community and had been engaged on daily wage basis as Attender from 15.05.1990; the 3rd petitioner belongs to the ‘SC’ Community and was appointed on daily wage basis as Attender on 01.06.1990; the 4th petitioner belongs to ‘BC-B’ Community and was appointed on daily wage basis as Attender on 18.12.1990; the 5th petitioner belongs to ‘BC-D’ Community and was appointed on daily wage basis as Attender on 27.02.1991; and the 6th petitioner belongs to ‘OC’ Community and was appointed on daily wage basis as Attender on 01.06.1996.

3. According to petitioners, they were continuously discharging their duties in the posts of Attenders against the sanctioned posts with all required qualifications as on the date of the filing of the Writ Petition, and that they were also extended minimum time-scale without increments from the year 2000.

4. In 2000, according to petitioners, a Selection Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of the 1st respondent-University for filling up vacancies in ‘Clerical and Class-IV’ categories conducted a meeting on 18.05.2000 with three Members, viz., (a) Sri J. Vitthal, Joint Registrar, J.N.T.U., Hyderabad; (b) Sri Niranjanachary, Deputy Registrar, Osmania University, Hyderabad; and (c) Prof. N. Siva Ramamurthy, Registrar, Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University, Hyderabad; and after considering category, strength, qualifications and the period of working, the said Committee made recommendations for regularization of the services of the six petitioners also.

5. In 2003, a letter dt.20.02.2003 addressed by the 1st respondent- University to the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad the 1st respondent stated that petitioners were given minimum time scale only against sanctioned vacancies and requested the latter to accord permission for granting regular time scales to them.

6. In 2008, the 1st respondent-University addressed a letter dt.21.05.2008 to the then Principal Secretary to Government, Finance (SMPC) Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (UE.II) Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad stating that the petitioners fulfilled all conditions for regularization as per G.O.Ms.212 Finance and Planning, dt.22.04.1994 except having five years service as on 25.11.1992; and that petitioners’ services are essential and there were sufficient vacancies for regularizing their services.

7. In 2015, the Registrar of the 1st respondent-University addressed a letter on 11.09.2015 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (U.E.) Department, Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad requesting the Government to take a sympathetic view and to permit the 1st respondent to regularize the services of the above six petitioners who were working on minimum time-scale against available vacancies mentioning that the additional expenditure involved in the regularization of their services would be met from the block grant of the 1st respondent-University.

8. The petitioners further contend that on 12.05.2017, the 1st respondent-University issued a notification for filling up posts of Office Subordinates, (06) in number, but the said regular recruitment had not been finalized till date.

Order dt.13.6.2019 in WP.No.11016 of 20