THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner on par with his juniors whose services were regularized in the year 2016-17 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to regularize the services of the petitioner with all consequences of benefits (in the year 2016-17) and to pass such other order or order in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman. The respondents have issued recruitment notification for appointment of a House Master for their school and after undergoing the process of selection, he was selected and appointed as House Master in the SC hostel of the respondent No.2 school on 13.05.2008 on contractual basis. It is submitted that the contract was being extended from time to time with artificial breaks in between and that the petitioner has been working with unblemished record and was also given additional charge as a librarian. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 has regularized the services of many contractual employees such as Mrs.Swathi Verma, Mrs.S.Aparna, Mr.Ramakrishna Reddy, Mr.Srikanth Reddy and Mr.Srikanth, all of whom were similarly placed as the petitioner herein and were juniors to the petitioner, i.e., they were appointed after the petitioner and that some of the other persons who were appointed under the recruitment notification 2008, and were regularized by the respondents are Mrs.Swathi Varma, Mrs.S.Aparna, Mr. Rama Krishna Reddy and Mr.Srikanth in the year 2016-17. The petitioner claims to have made several representations to the respondents for regularization of his services also in a suitable vacancy and alleged that the same were not considered. Challenging the above alleged inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The respondents had also issued proceedings dated 04.05.2023, terminating the contract of service with effect from 09.06.2023 and the same is also challenged as being without any legal basis and being abuse of process of law.

3. This Court, vide Interim Order dated 06.06.2023, directed the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner and the said order has been extended from time to time.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, filed a counter affidavit and also a stay vacate petition and submitted that the respondents have taken a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable as the respondent is not a local authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 is a school which is run by a society and therefore, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The second objection raised by the respondents is that the petitioner has not made the society which is running the schools, as a party and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. The third objection raised is that the employment of the petitioner is not a regular employment, but is a contractual employment and since the term of the contract has expired, the petitioner cannot claim continuation thereafter and there is no question of any regularization of his services.

5. It is submitted that the society not being a creature of statute, but being a society registered under the Societies Regularization Act, the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention that the society is not a ‘local authority’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the land on which the school is functioning is owned by the Government, but the Government collects lease from the society and therefore, it cannot be said that the school is a Government School. It is submitted that the policies of the school are framed by the Members of the Societ