IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, K. Sujana, JJ.
Gummadadala Venkataramaiah – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana- Respondent
Writ Appeal No.713 of 2022 Along With I.A.No.4 OF 2022
Decided On : 07-06-2024
(A) Telangana State Societies Act, 2001 - Notification dated 07.03.2022 - Writ petitioners sought regularization of services after years of contractual employment - Court held that employment was co-terminus with project work and contractual in nature, thus no right to regularization exists - Previous similar writ petitions dismissed, establishing precedent against claims for regularization. (Paras 8, 60)
(B) Employment Law - Regularization of Contractual Employees - The court emphasized that contractual employees cannot claim regularization as a matter of right, and such claims must adhere to statutory recruitment processes. (Paras 44, 59)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioners, engaged on a contractual basis, challenged the notification for new hires, claiming rights to regularization based on long service and similar job roles. They argued that the new notification was issued with mala fide intent to deprive them of their rights.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners were aware of their contractual status and had no legal right to claim regularization, as their employment was project-based and temporary.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners could claim regularization after years of service and if the new notification violated their rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that contractual employment does not confer rights to regularization, and the petitioners' claims were unfounded as they had accepted the terms of their employment.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K. Lakshman, J.
Heard Sri M.S Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Srikanth Ch, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri M.V. Rama Rao, learned Special Government Pleader for Services and Sri C. Haripreet, learned counsel appearing for the un-official respondents.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 17.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.13137 of 2022 by the learned Single Judge, the unsuccessful writ petitioners preferred the present intracourt appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.
3. The appellants have filed I.A.No.4 2022 to amend the cause title to the extent of 2nd respondent as ‘Telangana State Remote Sensing Application Centre (TRAC) represented by its Director General & Chairman, Secretariat, Hyderabad’ instead of ‘The Director General & Chairman, Telangana State Remote Sensing Application Centre (TRAC)’.
4. Having satisfied with the reasons and also considering the fact that it is a typographical mistake, the said application is allowed permitting the appellants herein to amend the cause title to the extent of 2nd respondent as ‘Telangana State Remote Sensing Application Centre (TRAC) represented by its Director General and Chairman, Secretariat, Hyderabad’. Registry is directed to carry out amendments.
5. The writ petitioners have filed the aforesaid writ petition to declare the notification issued by the respondents vide Advt.No. 01/TRAC/2022 dated 07.03.2022, for filling up the positions indicated in the notification on the premise of vacancies arrived, while the petitioners are rendering their services in very similar projects with identical qualifications and are in expectation of regularisation of their services on the verge of longevity of their services with the respondents, as illegal and consequently, to set aside the said notification and to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 25.01.2022 for regularization and absorption into the respondent organization on permanent basis.
6. The appellants herein are the petitioners in W.P. No.13137 of 2022, while the respondents herein were arrayed as such. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred as they were arrayed in W.P. No.13137 of 2022. The writ petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition contending as follows:
ii. All of them are continuing in the services by way of appointment under notification dated 31.08.2018. As per the general guidelines for selection, interested Remote Sensing and GIS Professionals to the post should identify the post/vacancy for which he/she is eligible, fill the application form provided online and submit the same by uploading the mandatory documents, such as Aadhaar Card, Secondary School Certificate etc.
iii. All the writ petitioners have submitted online applications to the 2nd respondent. On receipt of the said applications, 2nd respondent shall constitute a Committee for scrutinizing those applications and short-listing the eligible candidates. Thereafter, interviews will be conducted. The selected candidates will be appointed to hold their respective posts and they are engaged on hire basis.
iv. They have come into agreement with the 2nd respondent. v. All the writ petitioners were selected in the said process.
vi. Some of them were selected in the year 2007.
vii. Pursuant to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent again in the years 2010, 2012 and 2015, the applications were invited and recruitment was held.
viii. Most of the writ petitioners herein were appointed pursuant to the said notifications and are continuing as on today.
ix. Even then, respondents have not issued Identity cards.
x. They have not provided social security measures such as gratuity, pension and ESI cards etc.,
xi. Though the petitioners have been rendering their services continuously in respondent organization, they were given 10 days break in the year 2018 on
Director, Institute of Management Development
Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter (1994) 4 SCC 104
Kedar Nath Bahi v. State of Punjab AIR 1972 SC 873
Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation v. Paramjeet Sisngh
Secretary, State of Karnataka. v. Uma Devi
Contractual employees cannot claim regularization as a matter of right; their employment is project-based and temporary, governed by specific contractual terms.
Point of law: Service Law - Contractual employment - Regularization of Service - Having applied for appointment to various posts pursuant to a notification of 2019 and being unsuccessful (except one ....
The court emphasizes that regularization of temporary employees must adhere to principles of equality and fairness, ensuring parity in treatment for similarly situated employees.
Contractual employees may not claim regularization based on prolonged service or failed applications for higher posts, as employment must adhere to constitutional recruitment mandates.
Temporary or casual employment does not confer legal rights to regularization; adherence to proper recruitment processes is mandatory for permanent appointments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.