THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.26091 of 2019
ORDER:
Petitioner in this writ petition has questioned the action of respondents in not regularizing her services as Lecturer.
2. Heard Ms. G.Uma Rani, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents. Perused the record.
3. Case of the petitioner is that she is working as part-time Lecturer in Telugu, in KRR Government Arts & Science College, Kodad since 26.07.1991 in a clear vacancy as per the guide lines in vogue. Her case is that she has put-in 704 working days in 3 academic years (including Examination & Valuation duties) as on 25.11.1993, therefore, she is entitled for regularization of her service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.221, dated 20.06.1995. It is stated that in a similar case when the services of one Dr.A.Chandhoji Rao a part-time Lecturer were not regularized, he has filed O.A.No.83 of 2010 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The said O.A was allowed on 10.04.2013 directing 2 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi WP. No.26091 of 2019 for regularizing his services. The writ petition filed being W.P.No.32779 of 2013 against the orders of the Tribunal, was also dismissed. The subsequent review petition being W.P.MP.No.7198 of 2014 was also dismissed by this Court on 21.03.2014. Thereafter, the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C.No.10776 of 2014 which was also dismissed on 30.07.2014. Since the case of the petitioner stands on same footing, the petitioner has prayed for regularizing her services. It is stated that the petitioner has earlier filed W.P.No.38880 of 2018 seeking regularization of her services. This Court has granted interim orders directing the respondents to consider the representation of petitioner within a period of six weeks. Since the respondents have not passed any orders on her representation, she filed contempt case in C.C.No.529 of 2019, after which, the 2nd respondent has issued proceedings dated 22.06.2019 rejecting her application for regularization. Hence this writ petition.
4. Respondents have not filed counter affidavit. However, basing on the written instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.221, dated 20.06.1995 for 3 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi WP. No.26091 of 2019 regularization of services of the part-time Lecturers working in Government junior and degree colleges. One of the conditions stipulated under the said G.O. for regularization of services is that the incumbent should complete 3 academic years of part-time service as on 30.07.1991. Since, even according to the petitioner, as she joined as part-time Lecturer only on 26.07.1991, she does not satisfy the above condition. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for regularization of her services in terms of the said G.O. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The sole ground pleaded by the petitioner for regularization of her services is that she completed part-time service of three academic years as on 25.11.1993, as she joined on 26.07.1991. In view of the condition prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.221, dated 20.06.1995 that one should complete service of 3 academic years as on 30.07.1991, the petitioner cannot rely on the said G.O as she failed to satisfy the said condition since she could complete the service of 3 academic years only by 25.11.1993.
4
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi WP. No.26091 of 2019
6. Though the case of the petitioner does not fall under the aforesaid GO, she cannot be denied regularization in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 1, as per which, the cases of persons who have been recruited pursuant to a selection process and who have completed 10 years of service, deserve consideration for regularization. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as par-time Lecturer on 26.07.1991 in accordance with the guidelines in force at relevant point of time. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment is applicable to the case of the petitioner as she is working continuously for more than 32 years. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the services of petitioner can be regularized in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra).
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to regularize the services of petitioner as Lecturer in Telugu by taking her date of joining as 26.07.1991 and extend all monetary and other benefits in accordance with rules. There shall be no order as to costs. 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 5 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi WP. No.26091 of 2019 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 19.10.2023 lk 6 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi WP. No.26091 of 2019 702 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI WRIT PETITION No.26091 OF 2019 Date: .10.2023 lk