Telangana High Court
Smt.A.Jyosthna vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.11359 OF 2021
ORDER:
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of
mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in
passing the order dated 11.11.2016 rejecting the
representation of the petitioner dated 08.05.2016 seeking
regularization of her services in the aided vacant post of
Record Assistant in the Madapati Hanumantha Rao Girls'
High School, Hyderabad, w.e.f. 01.10.1997, as bad in law
and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize
the services of the petitioner in accordance with the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Uma Devi and also in the case of M.L.Kesari and to pass
such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present
writ petition are that the petitioner was selected to the post
of Record Assistant/Typist in the Madapati Hanumantha
Rao Girls' High School, Hyderabad. She was selected by the
Staff Selection Committee of the respondent School. The
TMD,J
services of the petitioner were not regularized in the aided
vacant post of Record Assistant/Typist in the school.
Therefore, the petitioner had made a representation for
regularization, which was rejected vide orders dated
11.11.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9948 of
2016, which was disposed of by directing the respondents
to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. In the
meanwhile, since the respondents did not dispose of the
representation, the petitioner had filed a Contempt Case
i.e., C.C.No.1275 of 2018 and the same was closed by
holding that the grievance of the petitioner cannot be gone
into in contempt proceedings. Subsequently, vide
impugned orders dated 11.11.2016, the representation of
the petitioner for regularization of her services has also
been rejected and challenging the same, the present writ
petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that after appointment of the petitioner as a Record
Assistant/Typist, she has been working in the said school
for a very long time and the respondents have also
TMD,J
recommended her case for absorption as a Record
Assistant/Typist. It is submitted that though the petitioner
has put in nearly thirty years of service, her services have
not been regularized. It is further submitted that the only
reason given by the respondents for rejecting her case for
regularization was that the petitioner's appointment as a
Record Assistant/Typist was not regular i.e., it was not
made by the Madapati Hanumantha Rao Girls' High
School, after obtaining the approval from the Government.
It is submitted that if at all it is to be considered that the
respondent No.6 School has not obtained the said
permission from the Government, it can only be an
irregularity and not an illegality and the irregularities can
be regularized.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma
Devi and Others 1 and in the case of State of Karnataka
1 2006 (4) SCC 1
TMD,J
and Others Vs. M.L.Kesari and Others 2 and also the
judgment of this Court in W.P.No.8178 of 2015, wherein
under similar circumstances, respondents therein were
directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner therein
were directed for absorption into the aided post on her
completion of required number of years as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma
Devi (cited supra) or in the case of M.L.Kesari (cited supra)
or from the date of the petitioner's acquiring the necessary
qualification to hold the post of 'Library Record Assistant'
in the existing vacancy of the Assistant Librarian. It is
submitted that the petitioner's case also should be
disposed of with similar directions.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also
relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit
filed along with the Stay vacate petition and submitted that
since the petitioner's appointment was not regular i.e., the
approval of the Government was not obtained prior to the
appointment, her case cannot be considered for
TMD,J
regularization. He therefore, sought dismissal of the writ
petition.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that admittedly, the
petitioner has been appointed in the year 1993 and has
been discharging her duties as a Record Assistant/Typist.
Obviously, there are no complaints against the petitioner
and the only reason for non-regularization of her services is
that the appointment has not been made regularly i.e.,
after obtaining the approval of the Government. As rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
respondent Nos.1 to 5 have not taken any action against
the respondent No.6 for making the appointments
irregularly, but have sought to penalize the petitioner
herein by non-regularization of her services and rejection of
the representation of the petitioner for regularization of her
services. In similar matter of Bhagya Jyostna (Petitioner in
W.P.No.8178 of 2015), this Court, vide order therein dated
18.07.2022, had also considered the case of the petitioner,
wherein similar objections were taken and this Court had
TMD,J
directed the respondents therein to re-consider the case of
the petitioner therein after considering the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Uma Devi (cited
supra) and M.L.Kesari (cited supra). Therefore, similar
directions are given to the respondents herein with regard
to the petitioner herein.
7. For reasons alike as were mentioned in
aforesaid order dated 18.07.2022 passed in W.P.NO.8178
of 2015 and in terms thereof, this writ petition is disposed
of. A copy of the order dated 18.07.2022 in W.P.NO.8178 of
2015 is appended to this order for ready reference. There
shall be no order as to costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Dated: 06.06.2024
bak
