SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 31963

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Mr.Srikanth Ch – Appellant
Versus
Telangana State Remote Sensing Application Centre (TRAC) – Respondent
W.P.No.13137 of 2022|W.A.No.935 of 2019|W.P.No.5830 of 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri M.S Prasad
For the Respondents: Sri M.V. Rama Rao,Sri C. Haripreet

Contractual employees cannot claim regularization as a matter of right, especially when their employment is explicitly tied to project completion and governed by specific contractual terms.

Headnote:(A) Telangana State Societies Act, 2001 - Contractual Employment - The appellants challenged the notification dated 07.03.2022 issued by the Telangana State Remote Sensing Application Centre for hiring professionals, claiming it was illegal as they sought regularization after years of service. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, ruling the petitioners were engaged on a contractual basis without a right to regularization. (Paras 8, 17, 60)

(B) Contractual Employment - Rights and Regularization - The court reiterated that employees engaged on a contractual basis cannot claim regularization or absorption as a matter of right, particularly when their employment is co-terminus with the project for which they were hired. (Paras 8, 60)

(C) Employment Notification - Validity and Procedure - The notification was issued following the necessary procedures and did not violate any rules or by-laws as claimed by the petitioners. (Paras 26, 60)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, engaged in various capacities at TRAC, argued against a new hiring notification, claiming rights to regularization based on their long service. They were dismissed by the Single Judge, who found their employment contractual and time-bound. (Paras 5-8)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld that the employment was purely contractual, with no right to regularization, and the notification did not violate any rules. (Paras 8, 60)

Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioners had a right to regularization based on their long-term service and if the notification was issued correctly. (Paras 5, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that contractual employees cannot claim regularization as a right, and the notification was valid as it followed the established procedures. (Paras 8, 60)

Result: Writ appeal dismissed; I.A.No.4 of 2022 allowed.

Table of Content
1. supreme court's stance on contract termination. (Para 39)

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

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 intra- court 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:

i. They have been working in 2nd respondent organization for several years in different positions.

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 thei

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top