Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S.Naga Kalyani vs The Government Of A.P. ... on 21 October, 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.9852 of 2004
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, by the petitioner to issue a Writ, order or
direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus,
declaring the proceedings No.Rt.No.239/O.P.I/2004, dated
12.05.2004 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the
respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Typist
with all monetary benefits, on par with rest of 9 persons.
2. Heard Sri P.V.Vijay Kumar, representing
Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Sri Metta Chendra Sekhar rao, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Typist in the year
1991 by the Respondent Department. Later, in the year 1993, the
respondent Department secured permission to continue the
services of 10 Typists and accordingly, the petitioner was engaged
as Typist and worked more than 8 years. Later her service was
disengaged. Though, she joined in the year 1991 and worked more
than 8 years as Typist, her services were not regularized.
4. As she was disengaged from the service, she filed a
writ petition in W.P.No.19591 of 2000. The other nine persons also
filed W.P.No.20285 of 1999 for continuation of their services.
During the pendency of the above writ, she made a representation,
dated 27.5.2001 before the respondent department requesting to
engage her in one of the sanctioned post. Later, this Court
disposed of the above writ petition by its order, dated 16.07.2001
by directing the respondent to dispose the said representation. But
the respondent did not take any action, besides issued impugned
proceedings stating that the case of the petitioner is not fit for
regularization of her services as per the scheme formulated.
Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ
petition.
5. At the time of admission, this Court by order, dated
23.06.2004, passed an interim direction and by virtue of the same,
the petitioner is being continued in service till today.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the
petitioner is working as Typist for the last 40 years, her
regularization ought to have been considered long back. In support
of his contention, learned counsel placed a reliance on the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of
Karnataka and others V.Umadevi (3) and others1.
7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel fairly
submits that the case of the petitioner has been recommended for
regularization and the same is pending before the respondent
Department.
(2006) 4 SCC 1
8. Considering the material on record and as the
petitioner is working as Typist for the last 40 years, her
regularization ought to have been considered long back by the
respondent Department. Therefore, taking into consideration of
the legality of giving a fair opportunity for employment, as defined
in Umadevi's case (Supra) this Court is of the considered view that
the impugned Proceedings warrants interference and the same is
liable to be set aside.
9. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed
and the impugned proceedings No.Rt.No.239/O.P.I/2004, dated
12.05.2004 is hereby set aside. The respondent Department is
hereby directed to take action on the recommendation for
regularization of the petitioner as early as possible, preferably
within a period of two (02) months from the date of the receipt of
a copy of this order. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
____________________
SRI K.SURESH REDDY,J
21st October,2021.
RPD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
Writ Petition No.9852 of 2004
Dated: 21.10.2021
RPD
