Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
K. Srinu – Appellant
Versus
Govt., of A.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties dispute regularization date for casual employees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners allege discriminatory and arbitrary regularization practices. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. policy and vacancies govern validity of regularization. (Para 9 , 10 , 14 , 20) |
| 4. judicial review focuses on prospective vs. retrospective regularization. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. prospective regularization is valid under policy and mou. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved is identical, these two writ petitions are being disposed of by way of a common order.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.145, 01.07.2009 and the proceedings dated 04.07.2009 and 22.07.2009 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, respectively and consequently sought a direction to the respondents to regularize their services from the date of their initial appointment or from the date of completion of 240 days as extended to other similarly situated persons.
3. For convenience, the facts in W.P.No.14991 of 2010 are discussed hereunder:
(a) The 2ndrespondent Corporation issued Notification No. P2/684(3)/
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
