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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 36356

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
M. Naga Raja – Appellant
Versus
State Government – Respondent
Writ Petition No.14065 of 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Surya Karan Reddy, K. Sita Ram
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Services-I

Regularization of part-time employees into permanent government-aided posts cannot be granted if the applicant does not fulfill the specific legislative or policy-mandated cutoff criteria for service duration and if the relevant regularization scheme has been formally annulled by the state.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Regularization of services - Petitioner appointed as Part-time Lecturer in an un-aided post in 1996 seeking regularization under G.O.Ms.No.328, dt. 15.10.1997 - Petitioner failed to fulfill the eligibility criteria of minimum service as on 25.11.1993 - Further, the scheme under G.O.Ms.No.328 was annulled by G.O.Ms.No.283, dt. 03.09.1999 - No legal ground for interference with a rejection order issued by the State Government where the applicant neither satisfied the policy conditions nor was appointed following prescribed selection procedures.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Lecturer in Commerce appointed on a consolidated pay/part-time basis in 1996 in an aided college, sought regularization of service. His previous efforts and writ petitions led to the government considering his case, which was ultimately rejected on grounds of lack of adherence to selection procedures and failure to meet the eligibility criteria prescribed in the relevant government orders (G.O.Ms.No.328) which was later annulled.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioner, having been appointed in 1996, did not meet the mandatory service duration required under the regularization scheme (G.O.Ms.No.328). Additionally, the subject scheme stood annulled in 1999. The court noted it cannot grant relief contrary to existing rules or direct regularization of back-door/illegal appointments.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization as a Lecturer in an aided post by relaxing mandatory selection procedures and despite failing to meet the temporal criteria of G.O.Ms.No.328.

Ratio Decidendi: A policy or scheme that has been formally annulled cannot be invoked for regularization, and appointments made without following prescribed selection procedures or meeting specified service criteria do not confer a legal right to regularization.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to the writ petition for regularization. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner reliance on specific g.os and precedent cases for regularization. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. respondent's contention regarding selection non-compliance and scheme annulment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. procedural history and previous interim directions by the court. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. requirement to meet statutory eligibility and impact of scheme annulment. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

ORDER:

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 1st 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 3rd 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, consequentia

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