Dr.P.Bhavani D/O, Late Sri ... vs State Of Telangana Rep. By Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4710 Tel

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

                   WRIT APPEAL No.121 OF 2017

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


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 01.12.2016, passed in W.P.Nos.9246 of 2008 and

12556 of 2009 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the

writ petition filed by the petitioner.


     The appellant/petitioner has filed the writ petitions

claiming regularisation with effect from 07.10.1994 though

she has been regularised with effect from 18.04.1998 on

the post of Lecturer.


     The facts of the case reveal that the appellant/

petitioner was appointed as a part-time Lecturer in Telugu

Department on 18.08.1988 in Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Junior

College,    Hyderabad         and      the     Government            of   Andhra

Pradesh     issued      a    G.O.Ms.No.362,              dated       07.10.1994

directing    the      colleges         to     forward          proposals      for

regularisation and payment of minimum scale to part-time

Lecturers/Junior            Lecturers           working            in     Private

Degree/Oriental and Junior Colleges in the entire State of

Andhra      Pradesh.        The     Commissioner,              Directorate     of

Intermediate       Education,          Nampally,           Hyderabad         vide

proceedings          dated          22.12.1994                directed       the
                                    2




Dr B.R.Ambedkar Junior College to submit annual salary

statement     in    respect   of   the    appellant/petitioner     for

payment of minimum scale of pay with effect from

07.10.1994.        The   State     Government       finally    issued

G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997 for regularisation of

services of part-time Lecturers and part-time Junior

Lecturers working in Private Aided Degree Colleges and

Junior Colleges in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh and

the Commissioner, Directorate of Intermediate Education

issued   an    order     dated     06.04.1998     regularising     the

appellant/petitioner with effect from 18.04.1998.


     The contention of the appellant/petitioner is that the

other identically placed persons were regularised with

effect from 07.10.1994, however, the appellant/petitioner

was regularised only with effect from 18.04.1998 and in

those circumstances, she has approached this Court.


     A representation was submitted by the appellant/

petitioner for regularisation with effect from 07.10.1994

and the same was rejected by the State Government on

09.03.2009. The representation was decided on account of

the interim order passed in the writ petition, i.e.,

W.P.No.9246 of 2008 directing the State Government to

decide   the       representation.       After   rejection    of   the

representation, the appellant/petitioner has filed another
                                     3




writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.12556 of 2009 challenging the

same. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by the

learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.12.2016 and

paragraphs 9 to 11 are reproduced as under:-

     "9. From the facts narrated above, there is no doubt that
    the petitioner's initial appointment as part-time lecturer
    in the 3rd respondent college was not through properly

constituted selection committee and her appointment was not as per rules, but due to the then policy of the Government, she was allowed to draw pay in minimum time scale attached to the post of Junior Lecturer w.e.f. 07.10.1994 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.362, dated 07.10.1994. She was also regularised with effect from 18.04.1998 by proceedings dated 06.04.1998 by giving her benefit of G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1998.

10. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgments of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19277 of 1999 and W.A.No.1492 of 2000 is misplaced inasmuch as in those cases, the posts where the petitioners therein were employed had been admitted to grant-in-aid on 01.04.1994 but they were denied the benefit of regularisation from that date. But in the case of 3rd respondent-college, the post where the petitioner was working was not admitted to grant-in-aid at the time when the petitioner was appointed on 18.08.1988. Therefore, the petitioner cannot compare her position with the petitioners in the above cases and seek regularisation her services from 07.10.1994. Therefore, I do not find any arbitrariness in the action of the respondents in rejecting request of petitioner for regularisation of her services from 07.10.1994 as claimed by her instead of 06.04.1998.

11. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs."

The undisputed facts of the case makes it very clear

that the appellant/petitioner was appointed only as a part-

time Lecturer, the post on which the petitioner was

working was not admitted to grant-in-aid, she was not

appointed through a properly constituted selection

committee and her initial appointment itself was not as per

rules. However, the appellant/petitioner was given the

benefit of drawing pay in minimum time scale attached to

the post of Junior Lecturer, with effect from 07.10.1994

and on account of G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997,

which is prospective in nature, she was regularised with

effect from 18.04.1998 though her initial appointment was

not as per rules. The appellant/petitioner has referred to

certain cases i.e., Vizianagaram Junior College, where the

posts on which the persons employed were admitted to

grant-in-aid, and they were not regularised from the date

on which they were admitted to grant-in-aid. However, in

the case of the appellant/petitioner, as already stated

earlier, was appointed de hors the statutory provisions, her

selection was not through property constituted selection

committee and in those circumstances, the Order was

passed regularising her with effect from 18.04.1998.

The appellant/petitioner has not been able to point

out any statutory provision of law which entitles her to be

regularised with effect from 07.10.1994. She has been

regularised only on account of the policy decision of the

State Government with effect from 18.04.1998. An

employee, who was a backdoor entrant, cannot be

regularised from the date of his/her choice, however the

appellant/petitioner was given the benefit of regularisation

with effect from 18.04.1998, even though the

appellant/petitioner was working as a part-time Lecturer.

The learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing

the writ petitions and this Court also does not find any

reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

31.12.2021 Pln