Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 62901

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 must strictly adhere to the cut-off dates and eligibility criteria prescribed in the relevant government orders; if a scheme has been annulled and the employee fails to meet the threshold service requirements, they possess no legal right to absorption.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Educational Service - Regularization of Part-time Lecturer - Eligibility criteria - Cut-off dates stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.328 - Annulment of scheme - Appellant appointed in 1996, while eligibility required service as on 1993 - Absence of compliance with conditions - Held, court cannot interfere with rejection order when the scheme is closed and petitioner does not meet the criteria. (Paras 21-22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Lecturer in Commerce appointed on a part-time basis on 25.11.1996, sought regularization and absorption into a sanctioned grant-in-aid post. The authorities rejected the claim on the grounds that the initial appointment did not follow required selection procedures and that the appellant did not fulfill the service length requirements prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997. The appellant argued discrimination, citing other instances where regularization was granted, but retired during the pendency of the petition.

Findings of Court:
Based on the Full Bench decision, the court held that the cut-off date of 25.11.1993 for service length under G.O.Ms.No.328 is mandatory. Since the appellant was appointed in 1996, he falls outside the eligibility criteria of the now-annulled scheme.

Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to regularization of service as a Lecturer despite not meeting the service length requirements of G.O.Ms.No.328 and the subsequent annulment of that scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Regularization cannot be ordered for a petitioner who does not meet the statutory cut-off dates or eligibility criteria stipulated in a government scheme, especially when that scheme has been formally annulled and the appointment was made contrary to prescribed recruitment procedures.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petitioner's plea for regularization and background facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments concerning parity with other regularized employees. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. arguments regarding regulatory non-compliance and employment bans. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. history of interim directions and subsequent departmental rejections. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. statutory non-compliance regarding cut-off dates leads to dismissal. (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, consequential proceedings were i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 62901

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADNamavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, JM. Naga Raja – AppellantVersusState Government – RespondentWRIT PETITION No.14065 OF 2016

Regularization of part-time employees must strictly adhere to the cut-off dates and eligibility criteria prescribed in the relevant government orders; if a scheme has been annulled and the employee fails to meet the threshold service requirements, they possess no legal right to absorption.

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