Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 9654
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ, G.M. Mohiuddin, J
Aeronautics Township Educational Committee (ATEC) – Appellant
Versus
N.Sharada – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No.253 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Uma Devi
For the Respondents: G. Vidya Sagar, K. Udaya Sri
A court should not issue a mandatory direction for the automatic regularization of an employee on consolidated salary; instead, it should direct the employer to consider the request for regularization based on service length, appointment process, and organizational necessity.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge to a writ court's direction to regularize a non-teaching employee who was appointed on a consolidated salary in 1994. The employee's previous termination had been set aside by a court, granting continuity of service. The appellants, a private society, contested the writ jurisdiction and the parity between non-teaching and teaching staff for regularization purposes. The primary issue is whether the court can mandate the automatic regularization of an employee on a consolidated salary. The court reasoned that while the employee's long tenure of over thirty years and appointment through a regular interview justify a review of her status, a direct order for regularization is inappropriate. Instead, the employer should be directed to consider the case for regularization based on service length and organizational need. The instant appeal is disposed of by modifying the impugned direction of the learned writ court to the effect that the appellants and respondents No.2 and 3 shall consider the case of respondent No.1 for regularisation/absorption within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history regarding appointment, termination, and the subsequent writ for regularization. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. maintainability of writ jurisdiction against a private society when previous judicial orders have already been passed. (Para 6) |
| 3. evaluation of the necessity of employment based on long-term service and appointment method. (Para 7) |
| 4. modification of a mandatory regularization order to a direction for consideration of regularization. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT:
Learned counsel Ms. V.Uma Devi appears for the appellants.
Learned Senior Counsel Sri G.Vidya Sagar, representing learned counsel Ms. K.Udaya Sri, appears for respondent No.1.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present appeal is filed against the judgment dated 23.06.2025 passed by the learned writ court in W.P.No.9563 of 2014 which was filed by respondent No.1 herein.
4. The challenge in the instant appeal is to the direction of the learned writ court passed in the writ petition to regularise respondent No.1 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order with consequential benefits, allowances and post-retirement benefits as applicable to the post and arrears, if any to be paid to her.
5. The background facts leading to institution of the writ petition are that respondent No.1 was offered appointment after a regular interview on a consolidated salary of Rs.1200/- per month vide offer of appointment dated 22.02.1994. She was terminated on 28.03.2008 on the ground that the strength of the students in the school where she was working has reduced from 2000 to 800. The writ petition, being W.P.No.11778 of 2008, filed by her assailing the termination order was allowed on 09.07.2013 setting aside the termination order. It was held that she would be entitled for continuity of service and all attendant benefits. No direction for regularisation of service was issued. The learned writ court, however, left it open to respondent No.1 to file a separate writ petition for regularisation or for other benefits if at all her services are not regularised. This led to filing of the present writ petition with a prayer to declare the action of the appellants and respondents No.2 and 3 in not regularising the services of respondent No.1 from the date of initial appointment i.e., 22.02.1994, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and for a consequential direction to regularise the services of respondent No.1 with effect from the date of appointment with consequential benefits. The learned writ court considered the stand of the parties and also the decisions relied upon by them and finally directed the official respondents to regularise/absorb respondent No.1 within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The appellants, who are respondents No.3 and 4 in the writ petition, being aggrieved have preferred this appeal.
6. One of the grounds taken is that the schools maintained by the appellants’ organisation, a private society, are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. This plea has been contested by respondent No.1 on the ground that the earlier writ petition of 2008 was allowed setting aside the termination order. Therefore, this question is no longer open to be raised.
7. The appellants have also raised the ground that the learned writ court has considered the case of respondent No.1 at par with the teaching employees, whereas respondent No.1 has been working on a non-teaching post on a consolidated salary. It is, however, not in dispute that termination of respondent No.1 was set aside with continuity in service and till the passing of the impugned order, she has been retained in service, in effect, for thirty years and more. In those circumstances, it is apparent that there is a need for keeping her in employment in the appellants’ organisation. In such circumstances, the learned writ court has been persuaded to issue directions for regularisation/absorption in service
