Regularization of services of lecturers requires adherence to specific eligibility criteria and procedures; failure to comply results in the denial of such claims.

ORDER:

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“...to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and absorption of his services against the existing grant-in-aid post in Lecturer of Commerce in the 3rd respondent-College from the date of his initial appointment to the said post, on par with the Lecturers, whose services were regularized by relaxing the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CEI-2) Department, dated 10.1.1992, in G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated 27.3.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.328, Education (CE-III) Department, dated 15.10.1997 with all consequential benefits, by duly setting aside the Memo No.2424/CE/A2/2017, dated 01.07.2017 issued by the 1^st respondent – State Government rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization of his service as Lecturer in Commerce as illegal and pass...”

2. Heard Sri T. Surya Karan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, argued on behalf of Sri K. Sita Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) Initially, the petitioner worked as a Lecturer in Commerce in New Government Degree College, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, on consolidated pay, during the academic year 1994-95 and 1995-96 on par with regular Government lecturers. Subsequently, in response to the Newspaper advertisement made in Deccan Chronicle, dated 16.11.1996, by respondent No.3 for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Commerce on consolidate payment with annual increments @ 10% on the said consolidated amount. The petitioner applied for the said post and got selected and appointed as a Lecturer in Commerce in the 3^rd respondent College with effect from 25.11.1996 i.e., academic year of 1996-97. In fact, the post of Lecturer in Commerce, which was advertised, is a post admitted to grant-in-aid and against the said post, recruitment Notification was given for appointment on consolidated pay.

(b) The petitioner resigned from the New Government Degree College, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, and joined as a Lecturer in Commerce in the 3^rd respondent-college on 25.11.1996 and since then he has been continuing till date. The petitioner was working against the grant-in-aid post i.e., in a clear vacancy, and is entitled for regular appointment as a Lecturer in Commerce. Even though the petitioner is fully eligible and qualified for regular appointment, in spite of putting 21 years of service, the respondents are not taking any steps for regularization of petitioner’s service in the existing grant-in-aid vacancy. Despite there being vacant six sanctioned aided posts in the said cadre, the respondents filled only one vacancy, reserved for scheduled Tribe on regular basis, in the year 2001.

(c) The petitioner filed W.P.No.17123 of 2001 before this Court and the same was disposed of on 03.07.2013, directing the respondents to consider the fresh proposals sent by the 3^rd respondent-college, dated 11.10.2012, in respect of petitioner’s absorption against the grant-in-aid post within a period of six weeks and pass appropriate orders. The Government, vide Memo No.9038/CE-II.2/2013-2, Higher Education (CE-II) Department, dated 24.12.2013, passed orders rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization of his service and admission into grant-in-aid. Pursuant to the same, consequential proceedings were issued by the 2^nd re