Telangana High Court
Smt.A.Jyosthna vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.11359 OF 2021
ORDER:
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in passing the order dated 11.11.2016 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 08.05.2016 seeking regularization of her services in the aided vacant post of Record Assistant in the Madapati Hanumantha Rao Girls' High School, Hyderabad, w.e.f. 01.10.1997, as bad in law and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in accordance with the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi and also in the case of M.L.Kesari and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was selected to the post of Record Assistant/Typist in the Madapati Hanumantha Rao Girls' High School, Hyderabad. She was selected by the Staff Selection Committee of the respondent School. The 2 TMD,J W.P.No.11359 of 2021 services of the petitioner were not regularized in the aided vacant post of Record Assistant/Typist in the school. Therefore, the petitioner had made a representation for regularization, which was rejected vide orders dated 11.11.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9948 of 2016, which was disposed of by directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, since the respondents did not dispose of the representation, the petitioner had filed a Contempt Case i.e., C.C.No.1275 of 2018 and the same was closed by holding that the grievance of the petitioner cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings. Subsequently, vide impugned orders dated 11.11.2016, the representation of the petitioner for regularization of her services has also been rejected and challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after appointment of the petitioner as a Record Assistant/Typist, she has been working in the said school for a very long time and the respondents have also 3 TMD,J W.P.No.11359 of 2021 recommended her case for absorption as a Record Assistant/Typist. It is submitted that though the petitioner has put in nearly thirty years of service, her services have not been regularized. It is further submitted that the only reason given by the respondents for rejecting her case for regularization was that the petitioner's appointment as a Record Assistant/Typist was not regular i.e., it was not made by the Madapati Hanumantha Rao Girls' High School, after obtaining the approval from the Government. It is submitted that if at all it is to be considered that the respondent No.6 School has not obtained the said permission from the Government, it can only be an irregularity and not an illegality and the irregularities can be regularized.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and Others 1 and in the case of State of Karnataka 1 2006 (4) SCC 1 4 TMD,J W.P.No.11359 of 2021 and Others Vs. M.L.Kesari and Others 2 and also the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.8178 of 2015, wherein under similar circumstances, respondents therein were directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner therein were directed for absorption into the aided post on her completion of required number of years as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (cited supra) or in the case of M.L.Kesari (cited supra) or from the date of the petitioner's acquiring the necessary qualification to hold the post of 'Library Record Assistant' in the existing vacancy of the Assistant Librarian. It is submitted that the petitioner's case also should be disposed of with similar directions.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed along with the Stay vacate petition and submitted that since the petitioner's appointment was not regular i.e., the approval of the Government was not obtained prior to the appointment, her case cannot be considered for 2 SLP(C) No.15774/2006, dt.03.08.2010 5 TMD,J W.P.No.11359 of 2021 regularization. He therefore, sought dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that admittedly, the petitioner has been appointed in the year 1993 and has been discharging her duties as a Record Assistant/Typist. Obviously, there are no complaints against the petitioner and the only reason for non-regularization of her services is that the appointment has not been made regularly i.e., after obtaining the approval of the Government. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 have not taken any action against the respondent No.6 for making the appointments irregularly, but have sought to penalize the petitioner herein by non-regularization of her services and rejection of the representation of the petitioner for regularization of her services. In similar matter of Bhagya Jyostna (Petitioner in W.P.No.8178 of 2015), this Court, vide order therein dated 18.07.2022, had also considered the case of the petitioner, wherein similar objections were taken and this Court had 6 TMD,J W.P.No.11359 of 2021 directed the respondents therein to re-consider the case of the petitioner therein after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Uma Devi (cited supra) and M.L.Kesari (cited supra). Therefore, similar directions are given to the respondents herein with regard to the petitioner herein.
7. For reasons alike as were mentioned in aforesaid order dated 18.07.2022 passed in W.P.NO.8178 of 2015 and in terms thereof, this writ petition is disposed of. A copy of the order dated 18.07.2022 in W.P.NO.8178 of 2015 is appended to this order for ready reference. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Dated: 06.06.2024 bak