IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

WRIT PETITION No.18359 of 2024

THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

Between:

Smt.D.Srilatha

… Petitioner

AND

State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Education Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad and (3) others.

… Respondents

THE HON'BLE SfRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.18359 of 2024

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner without issuing any show cause notice or conducting any enquiry, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu, representing Sri M.Krupakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri G.Sreechandra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of Special Officer in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV), Karimnagar vide proceedings dated 9.12.2013 on contract basis and she has been continued in service from 2013 to 2024 and completed eleven (11) years of service as Special Officer in KGBV, Karimnagar. While so, the respondent No.4 issued impugned termination order vide proceedings No.08/A3/2023 dated 21.2.2024. According to the petitioner, she was appointed by the respondent No.3, who is the competent authority for appointment or for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner, but however, the respondent No.4 has issued the impugned termination order, without issuing any show cause notice or conducting any enquiry in the matter, that too, when the contract period was subsisting, therefore, the impugned order dated 21.2.2024 is violative of principles of natural justice, apart from violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Questioning the said termination order, petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No.3 on

30.3.2024.

4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (1) Managing Director, E.C.I.L., Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, 1993(4) SCC727, (2) Anitha v. Union of India2 and (3) judgment of A.P. High Court in B.Nandeswar Rao v. A.P. Tourism Development Corporation Limited3

5. Per contra, the respondents Nos.3 and 4 in their counter affidavit, while admitting that the petitioner was selected as

2 SLP No.11086 of 2024

3 (2014) 4 ALD 695

Special Officer on contract basis, submits that the petitioner’s services were engaged purely on temporary and on yearly basis and that the petitioner was engaged every year afresh till the end of that academic year. It is further stated in the counter that the respondent No.3 issued order dated 17.4.2023 for terminating the services of all teaching and non-teaching staff working on contract/outsourcing basis in KGBV’s Schools during academic year 2022-23 on 21.4.2023 and to engage their services for academic year 2023-24 afresh with effect from 25.4.2023 and accordingly the services of the petitioner were terminated. It is further stated that as per the fresh contract, in case of improper conduct or unsatisfactory performance by the employee, Samagra Shiksha shall terminate the agreement without any notice and that no compensation shall be payable in such cases since the appointment is purely temporary and on contract basis. The Samagra Shiksha will terminate the services of the employee who involved in disciplinary and criminal cases. Further, the contract agreement shall remain in force till the last day of academic year 2023-24 i.e. upto 23.4.2024 only and the contract is ceased to be in force from 23.4.2024 and the petitioner will not be engaged for the next academic year. It is further stated that the petitioner lodged a complaint against GCD