Telangana High Court
Dr Ch Padma, Hyderabad, And 5 Otrs. vs The State Of Ts., Edn., And 2 Otrs. on 22 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.25264 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners in the post of Lecturers in Degree College, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner Nos.1 to 6 passed M.A. (Telugu), M.Sc. (Botony), M.Sc. (Zoology), M.Sc.(Physics), M.Sc. (Chemistry) and M.A (Hindi) respectively. Except the petitioner No.4, all other petitioners did Ph.D. The petitioners joined in the respondent No.3 - Sarojini Naidu Vanitha Mahavidyalaya as Part Time Lecturers on 19.11.1991, 06.10.1991, 11.08.1993, 01.08.1990, 20.07.1995 and 01.08.1991 respectively. The petitioners claim that they are continuing against aided posts as Part Time Lecturers on consolidated salary. 2
3. It is stated that the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh has enacted the A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services & Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short, 'Act 2 of 1994') to regulate appointments and prohibit irregular appointments in public service. It is further stated that the respondent No.1 has taken up the aspect of solving the demands of the employees working in the private aided colleges against the regular posts before and after the enactment of Act 2 of 1994 and for taking further action in the matter. The respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 29.10.2014 directed the respondent No.3 as well as various other private aided colleges to furnish the particulars of the employees, who are working against regular posts before and after the Act 2 of 1994. Pursuant to the same, the respondent No.3 has furnished the list of employees working in its college. The said list contains the names of the petitioners also. Thereafter, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 02.05.2016 again requested all the colleges to furnish the particulars of the unaided lecturers working against the regular aided posts in the private aided colleges. Pursuant to the same, 3 the respondent No.3 has again sent the list showing the particulars of such Lecturers, including the names of the petitioners.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that that though they were appointed through duly constituted Selection Committee and though their names were included in the list of Lecturers sent by the respondent No.3 college to the respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Collegiate Education, the Government has not taken any steps to regularize their services, which resulted in continuation of the petitioners on consolidated pay.
5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter affidavit denying the petition averments and inter alia stating that the petitioners are employees of the respondent No.3 - college, which is also running unaided sections, and therefore, the official respondents are no way concerned with the employment of the petitioners with the respondent No.3 - college. If the petitioners were appointed in aided vacancies, the respondent No.3-college ought to have taken permission from the competent authority before filling up the vacancies by giving equal opportunity to all the 4 eligible candidates. It is further stated that merely because the petitioners are working in the respondent No.3-college since long time, the petitioners cannot seek regularization. It is further stated that the Government through G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CEI-2) Department dated 10.01.1992 has prescribed the procedure for selection of Lecturers in Private Colleges, but, the respondent No.3 - college has not followed the procedure prescribed under the said G.O.
6. It is further stated that as per the representation received from the Teaching Association, certain information was called for vide C.C.E's Memo No.144/Admn.V-2/2014 dated 29.10.2014 with regard to the staff working in Aided Colleges. Therefore, there is no relevance to the information sought and the case of the petitioners. The petitioners are working in unaided posts and the respondents are no way concerned with the post held by them. It is further stated that there is no scheme to absorb the employee from un-aided post to aided post and that the Government has imposed a ban on recruitment of aided posts vide G.O.Ms.No.35 Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department dated 27.03.2006. 5
7. This Court, on 04.01.2018, while admitting the writ petition, directed the respondent-Management to pay minimum time scale attached to the post of Lecturer to the petitioners, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that orders, in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Punjab v. Jagjit Singh 1.
8. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Education for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Perused the record.
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed as Part Time Lecturers against vacant aided posts in the respondent No.3 - college by the Selection Committee duly following the process. He further submitted that in response to the request made by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the respondent No.3 - college has 1 (2017 (1) SCC 148) 6 submitted the list of Lecturers working in its college and the petitioners names were also included in the said list.
10. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioners are continuing in service since long time, and therefore, their cases have to be considered for regularisation. In support of the said contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2 and District Collector v. M.L. Singh 3.
11. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the respondent No.3 - college has both aided and unaided Sections and the Government is no way concerned with the employment of the petitioners, who were appointed in unaided posts. He further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CE 1-2) Department, dated 10.01.1992, the aided posts have to be filled up duly affording an opportunity to all the unemployed youth by giving advertisement etc. However, in the instant case, the respondent No.3 - college had not followed the said procedure 2 2006 (4) SCC 1 3 1998 (2) ALT 5 7 and appointed the petitioners contrary to the guidelines issued under the said G.O. As the petitioners were appointed in backdoor method and there is no policy to regularise the Part Time Lecturers, the petitioners cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right.
12. In support of the said contentions, the learned Government Pleader has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar v. State of Maharashtra 4; this Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education (CE.II) Department v. Raju Bolla, Lecturer in Botony (on contract basis, ABV Degree College, Janagaon 5; and Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana v. Balwinder Singh 6.
13. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are concerned, in Uma Devi's case, the Supreme Court held as under:
4
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 801 5 2007 (4) ALT 106 (DB) 6 2023(2) RCR (Civil) 336 8 "One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N. Nagarajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
14. In M.L. Singh's case, the Supreme Court held that the services of the employee have to be considered for regularisation as and when they complete the requisite period of service. 9
15. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the learned Government Pleader are concerned, in Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar's case, the Supreme Court held as under:
"We appreciate the argument of the petitioners that they have given best part of their life for the said college but so far as law is concerned, we do not find their continuous working has created any legal right in their favour to be absorbed. In the event there was any scheme for such regularization, they could have availed of such scheme but in this case, there seems to be none. We are also apprised that some of the petitioners have applied for appointment through the current recruitment process. The High Court has rejected their claim mainly on the ground that they have no right to seek regularization of their service. We do not think any different view can be taken"
16. A perusal of record discloses that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10.01.1992 prescribing the procedure for selection of Lecturers/Junior Lecturers in Private Degree/Junior Colleges. As per the said G.O, the Management of the private colleges shall notify the vacancies to the Employment Exchange (Professional and Executive Officers) Hyderabad, and that without waiting for sponsoring of the candidates by the Employment Exchange, after a lapse of 15 days, the Management of the private colleges shall notify the vacancies in two daily newspapers (Local and National) indicating the roster point 10 calling for applications from eligible candidates. The said G.O. further specifies the educational qualification, rule of reservation and the manner in which the selection has to be completed.
17. It is apt to refer to Act 2 of 1994, which laid down the norms and procedures for regularisation of appointments to public services and rationalisation of staffing patterns and pay structures and the said Act prohibits the Government Departments, Corporations, Universities and Local bodies etc., from making illegal unauthorised appointments through the backdoor as NMRs on daily wages or on consolidated pay.
18. The petitioners are claiming that they are continuing as Lecturers in aided posts. But, the Service Certificates issued by the respondent No.3 - college show that the petitioners are working as Lecturers in un-aided posts.
19. Further, neither the petitioners nor the respondent No.3 - college has placed any material on record to show that the procedure prescribed for selection of Lecturers/Junior Lecturers i.e., providing opportunity to eligible candidates by notifying the 11 vacancies in the Employment Exchange or issuing paper publication has been followed. Furthermore, no selection committee has been constituted and no prior approval has been obtained from the Government. Therefore, appointment of the petitioners in respondent No.3- college cannot be termed as legal.
20. As held by the Supreme Court in Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar's case, the petitioners cannot seek regularisation as a matter of right though he has put in long period of service.
21. Further, in Raju Bolla's case, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that where the appointments were made by the private colleges though through selection process without intervention or assistance of the Government, nothing can be attributed against the Government, as the entire process involves a direct relationship between the management and such employees.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the judgments referred to above, this Court 12 is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit.
23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 22.12.2023 va