Dairatul Ma Arifilosmania vs Syed Rayeesuddin
2021 Latest Caselaw 4154 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                        AND
            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

             W.A.Nos.555 of 2020 and 275 of 2021


COMMON JUDGMENT:            (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



      Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid

cases, they were heard together and are being decided by a

common order.

      The facts of W.A.No.555 of 2020 are reproduced as under:-

      The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

08.11.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.984 of

2019, by which the learned Single Judge has directed the present

appellants to forward a proposal for regularising the services of

respondent Nos.1 to 4/employees to the State Government and the

State Government has been directed to consider their cases for

regularisation. The other important aspect of the case is that the

termination orders of respondent Nos.1 to 4/employees have also

been set aside.

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that appellant No.1,

Dairatul-Ma'Arif-il-Osmania, was established in the year 1888 AD

by the erstwhile ruler of Hyderabad and since then the Institution

is in existence. It was earlier receiving grant-in-aid from the

Hyderabad State and now from the State of Telangana.

G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 24.01.1994 was issued by the State

Government transferring the Institution from the administrative

control of the Education Department to the Minorities Welfare

Department and thereafter, an Advertisement was issued inviting

applications for five posts of Sub-Editors. Respondent Nos.1 to

4/employees were appointed as Sub-Editors, through process of

selection, on 28.04.2001 and they were continued by the present

appellants without any break. The appellants, later on, directed

respondent Nos.1 to 4/employees to execute a contract and a

contract was executed on 25.11.2008 appointing respondent

Nos.1 to 4/employees for a period of five years.

Respondent Nos.1 to 4/employees, as they were

apprehending threat of discontinuance, came before this court by

filing W.P.No.32903 of 2010 and this court granted an interim

order directing the parties to maintain status quo. While the writ

petition was pending before this court, the cases of the employees

were recommended to the State Government by the Director of the

Institution for regularisation. A copy of one such recommendation

in respect of Syed Rayeesuddin, respondent No.1 in the present

writ appeal, is reproduced as under:-

"Check List to Furnish proposals for regularization of services of Persons appointed on Contract basis (See Finance Department circular Memo No.308-A/51/A3/HRM-I/2014-dt.26-02-2016)

Department : Research & Editing, Dairatul Maarif Osmania

Head of the Department : Prof. Dr. Mehjabeen Akther

1 Name of the Individual Syed Rayeesuddin S/o Syed Fayazuddin 2 Date of Birth and age as on the 01-01-1976 - (24 Years) date of appointment (enclose proof) 3 Date of appointment (enclose 28-04-2001 proof) Appointed by Executive Committee through interview with due process. Appointment Order No.88/2000-2001/57 4 Whether appointment is on Full Yes Time contract basis 5 Monthly Remuneration at present 23,329 6 Name of the post against which Editor regularization proposed 7 G.O.No. and Date in which the The Institution established by the post sanctioned/created (enclosed Govt. of Hyderabad in 1888. All proof) posts are created by the E.C of Daira, under the presidentship of Hon'ble Chief Minister.

       8         Localization of cadre (state/Multi-       State
                 zonal/zonal/district)
       9         Qualification prescribed for the          M.A.
                 post as par service rules
      10         Qualification possessed by the            M.A. SLET
                 individual (enclose proof)





      11     Community of the Individual             OC
             (SC/ST/BC/OC/enclose proof)
      12     Local Status of the individual          Local
             (enclose proof)
      13     Roster point against which the
             regularization is proposed
      14     Whether     the    individual  was      Yes
             working as on second Jun 2014
             and being continued as on date
      15     Remark if any                           90th E.C held on 4-5-2012 resolved
                                                     to regularize the services.



                                                  Sd/-
                                          DIRECTOR & SECRETARY
                                      DAIRATUL MAARIFIL OSMANIA
                             OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, HYDERABAD - A.P"

The aforesaid recommendation makes it very clear that

respondent No.1 was appointed in the year 2001 after following the

due process and the Executive Committee, in its 90th Meeting,

resolved to regularise his services. It is pertinent to note that the

Government of Telangana also issued G.O.Ms.No.16 dated

26.02.2016 for regularising the services of such employees and

again the present appellants recommended their cases for

regularisation on 20.05.2016. The matter was pending for

regularisation and the writ petition preferred by respondent Nos.1

to 4/employees i.e., W.P.No.32903 of 2010 was disposed of, by an

order dated 13.12.2018, directing the employer to consider their

cases for regularisation in the light of the Government Order

issued on the subject.

The present appellants, instead of regularising the services of

the employees, passed an order of termination on 10.01.2019 and

also, at the same time, issued an Advertisement for appointing

fresh candidates as Sub-Editors and in those circumstances, a

second writ petition was preferred i.e., W.P.No.984 of 2019. The

learned Single judge has allowed the writ petition. He has set

aside the orders of termination and has directed the present

appellants to forward the cases of respondent

Nos.1 to 4/employees for regularisation to the State Government.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has placed

reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India

vs. Satish Joshi1 and his contention is that in the light of the

aforesaid judgment, as the employment was for a fixed term, no

right has vested for regularisation.

This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid

judgment. In the present case, the conduct of the appellants in

inviting applications afresh, after terminating the services of

respondent Nos.1 to 4/employees, establishes the need of Sub-

Editors in the Institution. It is nobody's case that work for Sub-

Editors is not available in the Institution in question and therefore,

the aforesaid judgment does not help the present appellants in any

manner. Not only this, respondent Nos.1 to 4/employees were

appointed in 2001 for the first time. It was only in 2008, a

contract was executed by them for a period of five years. They

have continued in service on account of interim order and they are

in service for more than two decades approximately, whereas no

such contingency is involved in the case of Satish Joshi (1 supra).

Not only this, the learned Single Judge has simply directed

consideration of their cases by the State Government for

regularisation. The State Government is yet to take a final decision

in the matter of regularisation.

Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments delivered

in the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi2,

L.P.A.No.197 of 2013 dated 14.08.2013

(2006) 4 SCC 1

Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen, Indian

Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.3 and Ashwani Kumar vs. State

of Bihar4.

This court has carefully gone through the aforesaid

judgments. The present case is not a case where, at the first

instance, the employees were appointed for a fixed term. They

were appointed on 28.04.2001 and it was only on 25.11.2008, a

contract was signed between the employer and the employees

appointing them for a period of five years. Thereafter, they have

continued on account of the status quo order passed in

W.P.No.32903 of 2010. As the Institution has already taken a

decision for regularising the employees, the proposal was rightly

forwarded to the State Government and the learned Single Judge

was justified in directing the present appellants to forward the

proposal afresh for regularisation to the State Government and the

State Government in turn was directed to consider the cases for

regularisation. There is no direction to regularise respondent

Nos.1 to 4/employees mechanically. The regularisation has to be

done, keeping in view the policy of the State Government and the

law laid down by the Apex Court in various cases from time to

time. Another important aspect of the case is that it is

nobody's case that the Institution has been closed or the post of

Sub-Editor is not required in the Institution. The Institution, by

issuing subsequent Advertisement, has established that they are in

need of Sub-Editors. Therefore, the orders of termination have

been set aside by the learned Single Judge. The Institution is left

(2007) 1 SCC 408

(1997) 2 SCC 1

with no other choice except to reinstate respondent Nos.1 to

4/employees forthwith.

This court does not find any reason to interfere with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Resultantly, Writ Appeal No.555 of 2020 is dismissed.

The connected writ appeal i.e, W.A.No.275 of 2021 filed by

the State Government also stands dismissed and the State

Government shall consider the cases of respondent Nos.1 to

4/employees for regularisation, in accordance with law, in the light

of the policy framed by the State Government on the subject.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 06.12.2021 JSU