Telangana High Court
Dr Ch Padma, Hyderabad, And 5 Otrs. vs The State Of Ts., Edn., And 2 Otrs. on 22 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.25264 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of
the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners
in the post of Lecturers in Degree College, as illegal and arbitrary,
and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the
services of the petitioners from the date of their initial
appointment with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner Nos.1
to 6 passed M.A. (Telugu), M.Sc. (Botony), M.Sc. (Zoology),
M.Sc.(Physics), M.Sc. (Chemistry) and M.A (Hindi) respectively.
Except the petitioner No.4, all other petitioners did Ph.D. The
petitioners joined in the respondent No.3 - Sarojini Naidu
Vanitha Mahavidyalaya as Part Time Lecturers on 19.11.1991,
06.10.1991, 11.08.1993, 01.08.1990, 20.07.1995 and 01.08.1991
respectively. The petitioners claim that they are continuing
against aided posts as Part Time Lecturers on consolidated salary.
3. It is stated that the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh has
enacted the A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services
& Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994
(for short, 'Act 2 of 1994') to regulate appointments and prohibit
irregular appointments in public service. It is further stated that
the respondent No.1 has taken up the aspect of solving the
demands of the employees working in the private aided colleges
against the regular posts before and after the enactment of Act 2
of 1994 and for taking further action in the matter. The
respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 29.10.2014 directed the
respondent No.3 as well as various other private aided colleges to
furnish the particulars of the employees, who are working against
regular posts before and after the Act 2 of 1994. Pursuant to the
same, the respondent No.3 has furnished the list of employees
working in its college. The said list contains the names of the
petitioners also. Thereafter, respondent No.2 vide letter dated
02.05.2016 again requested all the colleges to furnish the
particulars of the unaided lecturers working against the regular
aided posts in the private aided colleges. Pursuant to the same,
the respondent No.3 has again sent the list showing the
particulars of such Lecturers, including the names of the
petitioners.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that that though they
were appointed through duly constituted Selection Committee
and though their names were included in the list of Lecturers sent
by the respondent No.3 college to the respondent No.2 -
Commissioner of Collegiate Education, the Government has not
taken any steps to regularize their services, which resulted in
continuation of the petitioners on consolidated pay.
5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter affidavit denying
the petition averments and inter alia stating that the petitioners
are employees of the respondent No.3 - college, which is also
running unaided sections, and therefore, the official respondents
are no way concerned with the employment of the petitioners
with the respondent No.3 - college. If the petitioners were
appointed in aided vacancies, the respondent No.3-college ought
to have taken permission from the competent authority before
filling up the vacancies by giving equal opportunity to all the
eligible candidates. It is further stated that merely because the
petitioners are working in the respondent No.3-college since long
time, the petitioners cannot seek regularization. It is further
stated that the Government through G.O.Ms.No.12, Education
(CEI-2) Department dated 10.01.1992 has prescribed the
procedure for selection of Lecturers in Private Colleges, but, the
respondent No.3 - college has not followed the procedure
prescribed under the said G.O.
6. It is further stated that as per the representation received
from the Teaching Association, certain information was called for
vide C.C.E's Memo No.144/Admn.V-2/2014 dated 29.10.2014
with regard to the staff working in Aided Colleges. Therefore,
there is no relevance to the information sought and the case of the
petitioners. The petitioners are working in unaided posts and the
respondents are no way concerned with the post held by them. It
is further stated that there is no scheme to absorb the employee
from un-aided post to aided post and that the Government has
imposed a ban on recruitment of aided posts vide G.O.Ms.No.35
Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department dated 27.03.2006.
7. This Court, on 04.01.2018, while admitting the writ petition,
directed the respondent-Management to pay minimum time scale
attached to the post of Lecturer to the petitioners, within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that orders, in
view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Punjab v. Jagjit
Singh 1.
8. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for
Education for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri T.S. Praveen
Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Perused the
record.
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
would submit that the petitioners were appointed as Part Time
Lecturers against vacant aided posts in the respondent No.3 -
college by the Selection Committee duly following the process.
He further submitted that in response to the request made by
respondent Nos.1 and 2, the respondent No.3 - college has
(2017 (1) SCC 148)
submitted the list of Lecturers working in its college and the
petitioners names were also included in the said list.
10. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
petitioners are continuing in service since long time, and
therefore, their cases have to be considered for regularisation. In
support of the said contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has
relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2 and District Collector v. M.L. Singh 3.
11. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Education
appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the
respondent No.3 - college has both aided and unaided Sections
and the Government is no way concerned with the employment
of the petitioners, who were appointed in unaided posts. He
further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CE 1-2)
Department, dated 10.01.1992, the aided posts have to be filled
up duly affording an opportunity to all the unemployed youth by
giving advertisement etc. However, in the instant case, the
respondent No.3 - college had not followed the said procedure
2006 (4) SCC 1
1998 (2) ALT 5
and appointed the petitioners contrary to the guidelines issued
under the said G.O. As the petitioners were appointed in
backdoor method and there is no policy to regularise the Part
Time Lecturers, the petitioners cannot claim regularisation as a
matter of right.
12. In support of the said contentions, the learned Government
Pleader has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar v. State of Maharashtra 4; this
Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary,
Higher Education (CE.II) Department v. Raju Bolla, Lecturer in
Botony (on contract basis, ABV Degree College, Janagaon 5; and
Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana v.
Balwinder Singh 6.
13. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners are concerned, in Uma Devi's case,
the Supreme Court held as under:
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 801
2007 (4) ALT 106 (DB)
2023(2) RCR (Civil) 336
"One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular
appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.
Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N. Nagarajan
(supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons
in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees
have continued to work for ten years or more but without the
intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of
regularization of the services of such employees may have to be
considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in
the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that
context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure,
the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years
or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts
or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled
up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now
employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this
date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub
judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be
no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing
or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional
scheme."
14. In M.L. Singh's case, the Supreme Court held that the
services of the employee have to be considered for regularisation
as and when they complete the requisite period of service.
15. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the learned
Government Pleader are concerned, in Ganesh Digamber
Jambhrunkar's case, the Supreme Court held as under:
"We appreciate the argument of the petitioners that they have
given best part of their life for the said college but so far as law is
concerned, we do not find their continuous working has created any legal
right in their favour to be absorbed. In the event there was any scheme
for such regularization, they could have availed of such scheme but in
this case, there seems to be none. We are also apprised that some of the
petitioners have applied for appointment through the current
recruitment process. The High Court has rejected their claim mainly on
the ground that they have no right to seek regularization of their service.
We do not think any different view can be taken"
16. A perusal of record discloses that the Government has
issued G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10.01.1992 prescribing the procedure
for selection of Lecturers/Junior Lecturers in Private
Degree/Junior Colleges. As per the said G.O, the Management of
the private colleges shall notify the vacancies to the Employment
Exchange (Professional and Executive Officers) Hyderabad, and
that without waiting for sponsoring of the candidates by the
Employment Exchange, after a lapse of 15 days, the Management
of the private colleges shall notify the vacancies in two daily
newspapers (Local and National) indicating the roster point
calling for applications from eligible candidates. The said G.O.
further specifies the educational qualification, rule of reservation
and the manner in which the selection has to be completed.
17. It is apt to refer to Act 2 of 1994, which laid down the
norms and procedures for regularisation of appointments to
public services and rationalisation of staffing patterns and pay
structures and the said Act prohibits the Government
Departments, Corporations, Universities and Local bodies etc.,
from making illegal unauthorised appointments through the
backdoor as NMRs on daily wages or on consolidated pay.
18. The petitioners are claiming that they are continuing as
Lecturers in aided posts. But, the Service Certificates issued by
the respondent No.3 - college show that the petitioners are
working as Lecturers in un-aided posts.
19. Further, neither the petitioners nor the respondent No.3 -
college has placed any material on record to show that the
procedure prescribed for selection of Lecturers/Junior Lecturers
i.e., providing opportunity to eligible candidates by notifying the
vacancies in the Employment Exchange or issuing paper
publication has been followed. Furthermore, no selection
committee has been constituted and no prior approval has been
obtained from the Government. Therefore, appointment of the
petitioners in respondent No.3- college cannot be termed as legal.
20. As held by the Supreme Court in Ganesh Digamber
Jambhrunkar's case, the petitioners cannot seek regularisation as
a matter of right though he has put in long period of service.
21. Further, in Raju Bolla's case, the erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh held that where the appointments were made by
the private colleges though through selection process without
intervention or assistance of the Government, nothing can be
attributed against the Government, as the entire process involves
a direct relationship between the management and such
employees.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the erstwhile High Court
of Andhra Pradesh in the judgments referred to above, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is
devoid of any merit.
23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 22.12.2023
va
