Telangana High Court
Sahik Ibraheem vs The State Of Telangana on 1 December, 2021
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.943 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the
appellant before this Court was appointed as an Attender at
SR & BGNR Government Arts and Science College at
Khammam. It is not in dispute that the College is having
certain self-financing courses. Meaning thereby, the courses,
which do not receive any kind of grant from the State
Government. A proposal was sent in respect of the appellant
by the College for appointing him as an outsourcing staff and
as nothing has been done, a writ petition was preferred. The
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
The facts of the case also reveal that in large number of
Colleges the Principals are appointing non-teaching staff
under the self-financing course illegally and various
irregularities were committed by them in such appointments
without the permission of the State Government. In those
circumstances, instructions were issued to the Principals not
to appoint persons/non-teaching staff under self-financing
course in the light of the Telangana (Regulation of
Appointments to Public Services and Retionalisation of Staff
Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994.
2
The undisputed facts also reveal that the self-financing
course has been dispensed with from the academic year
2018-19 and therefore, the appellant has not been continued
by the respondent College. The learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition. The relevant paragraphs of the
order passed by the learned Single Judge are as under:
"Learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents had filed counter contending that certain
principals are engaging non-teaching staff in self-finance
courses illegally and irregularly without permission of the
2nd respondent. Therefore, instructions have been issued
to all the principals not to engage any non-teaching staff in
self-finance courses in view of the Act 2 of 1994. It is
further contended that the self-finance courses have been
dispensed in the 4th respondent-College with effect from
the academic year 2018-19 and therefore, the proposals
submitted by the 4th respondent are contrary to the
instructions issued by the 2nd respondent. There are no
merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that
in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated
that the self-finance courses have been dispensed with in
the 4th respondent college with effect from the academic
year 2018-19. When the respondents are contending that
there are clear instructions not to engage any non-teaching
staff in self-finance courses, it is difficult for this Court to
direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner
for appointment, which is contrary to the policy of the State
Government. There are no merits in the writ petition and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any shall stand
closed."
Before this Court no statutory provision of law has been
pointed out by the learned counsel, which provides for
regularisation/engagement of non-teaching staff, who were
engaged under the self-financing scheme, to engage them
later on as outsourcing staff and therefore, in the absence of
any statutory provision of law, this Court cannot issue such a
writ, as prayed for. The learned Single Judge was justified in
dismissing the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
01.12.2021
ES
