Telangana High Court
B.Bharathamma, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 19 August, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_20036& 21029_2013
NBK, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION Nos.20036 and 21029 of 2013
COMMON ORDER:
In view of commonality of the issue involved in both the writ
petitions, they are analogously heard and taken up for disposal by way
of this Common Order. For reference and discussion, the facts in
W.P.No.20036 of 2013 are taken.
2. The case of the petitioners, precisely, as per the writ affidavit, is
that they are educationally qualified and eligible for appointment as
Anganwadi workers, and Supervisors Grade-II; and the respondent-
Government has conducted due selection process, and selected the
petitioners for appointment. However, due to the ban imposed at the
relevant time for appointments, the petitioners were appointed on
contract basis through an agency, namely RK4CES Agency, on contract
basis. The material papers filed with the writ petition would show that
one Indiramma was appointed way back in the year 1985; and the
petitioners have put in service ranging between 6 to 15 years as on the
date of filing the writ petition in 2013. While so, the respondent-
Government issued a Notification No.228/2013 dated 02.07.2013 for
recruitment of Supervisors Grade-II, by providing 15% weightage marks
to the contract employees/petitioners. It is the grievance of the
petitioners that the Notification dated 02.07.2013 is illegal and arbitrary;
in that the notification seeks the petitioners to appear for the selection
process again, despite their selection against sanctioned posts and
rendering services for over a decade.
wp_20036& 21029_2013
NBK, J
3. Heard Mr.K.R. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners; and
learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Perused the record.
4. Learned Government Pleader, based on the counter affidavit,
would essentially contend that as per the Rules, the posts have to be
filled by direct recruitment, and keeping in view the contract service
rendered by the petitioners, a 15% weightage has been provided; and the
Rules does not permit regularization of services and hence the
petitioners cannot be regularized. It is also contended that though the
petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts, they are contract
employees and they cannot claim regularization. It is contended that the
petitioners can attend for selection process, and in case any of the
petitioners fail to get selected, they will still be continued in the contract
employment and such number of posts will be reduced from the total
posts notified.
5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the
material papers filed with the writ affidavit, including the appointment
order issued to one M. Padmasree on 03.12.1985 and one P. Indravathi
on 01.04.1987 (at page Nos.44 to 47 of the material papers in WP
No.20036 of 2013), and also the judgments relied on by the respective
parties, it is to be noted at the outset that it is an admitted fact that the
petitioners have been appointed against sanctioned posts, and the
petitioners have undergone due recruitment process and it is only
thereafter they were appointed, however, due to the constraint of ban
imposed on recruitment, the authorities appointed the petitioners on
contract basis, and the petitioners have been continuing as Anganwadi
workers/ Supervisors Grade-II. Further, there is nothing on record to
show that the petitioners are not educationally unqualified or
wp_20036& 21029_2013
NBK, J
incompetent to perform the duties of the post. Furthermore, the
petitioners have been subjected to all the regular selection process at the
time of their initial appointment.
6. It is to be noted that the writ affidavit and the material papers
enclosed therewith, and also the admissions made by the respondent
authorities in the counter affidavit, would disclose that the petitioners
are qualified and have undergone due process of selection before
appointment against sanctioned posts, and they are continuing in
service.
7. The Rules governing the recruitment per se, be that as it may,
when the respondent-Government has on its own volition imposed a
ban, and keeping in view the circumstances prevailing at the relevant
time of ban, taken the petitioners on contract basis by subjecting them to
the due process of selection on the same lines of regular selection
process, and appointing them in sanctioned posts, cannot take a contrary
stand that the petitioners are contract employees and they cannot seek
regularization. Further, the petitioners have been serving ever since their
respective appointment dates and put in their youthful years in service of
ICDS Project as Anganwadi workers, and Supervisors Grade-II; and
now when the ban has been removed, it ought to have been the priority
of the Government to consider the candidature of the petitioners first, for
regularization, and in case any further vacancies are still left out after
regularization of petitioners, then go for a fresh recruitment.
8. Means are as important as the end. The ICDS Project aimed at
addressing the health and nutrition needs of children and lactating
mothers, and the petitioners having rendered services for decades by due
selection process against regular sanctioned posts, albeit on contract
wp_20036& 21029_2013
NBK, J
basis due to a policy of ban at the relevant time, cannot be denied of
their rightful claim for regularization on the ground that they are
contract employees, when it is the respondent-Government that has
taken the petitioners on contractual terms in view of the ban. The
argument now being made by the learned Government Pleader that the
petitioners would be given a weightage of 15% was neither a pre-
condition at the time of their initial appointment way back, almost a
decade ago, nor a justification for the impugned notification for direct
recruitment. Admittedly, the petitioners are educationally qualified,
undergone due selection process, and appointed against sanctioned
posts, but on contract basis due to the ban at the relevant period of time.
9. The respondent-authorities having utilized the services of the
petitioners, that too after subjecting them to the due selection process
and appointing against sanctioned posts, cannot put them to
disadvantage by proposing new set of conditions and bymaking them
undergo the selection process afresh. Further, the stand taken in the
counter affidavit that the petitioners can attend selection process with
15% weightage facility and in case not selected, they would continue in
contract position and the number of posts would be reduced to that
extent in the direct recruitment under the impugned notification, does
not even stand to reason, for, the respondent-Government is itself unsure
of how many number of vacancies are actually open for competing
under the impugned notification, even assumingother prospective
candidates (not the petitioners) want to compete in the selection process.
This Court neither finds merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of
respondent-authorities, nor balance of convenience in their favour.
Further, the impugned notification is a curtain-raiser to a messy
wp_20036& 21029_2013
NBK, J
situation, where the other aspirants (apart from petitioners)would be
unsure of the number of vacancies they would be competing against.
10. This Court, by Order dated 11.07.2013, while issuing Notice to
the parties, passed the following Order:
"Notice before admission.
Heard both the counsel.
The 15th petitioner Ms. M. Sridevi, filed an affidavit in support of this
petition. It is not in dispute that there are regular posts sanctioned by
the Government vide G.O.Ms.44, WD, CW & DW (ICDS) Dept.,
dated 19.09.2002 (770 posts) and vide G.O.Ms.No.4, dated
29.01.2006 (120 posts). Though there were sanctioned posts, since
there was ban on recruitment, all the petitioners were recruited on
contract basis. It is not in dispute that they were selected through
due process of selection. The Commissioner, Women Development
and Child Welfare had also requested that all the 890 Supervisors,
Grade-II, were recruited by duly following the procedure prescribed
in G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 10.05.2000, for regular appointment and it
would be appropriate to regularize their services in the cadre of
Supervisors, Grade-II.
Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel also submits that
the Regional Deputy Director, ICDS, Women Development & Child
Welfare Department, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad vide
proceedings No.899/3/97, dated 17.05.1997, appointed some persons
on regular basis, while others were appointed on contract basis. The
Senior counsel further submits that though some of the petitioners
have reached the age of retirement and have worked for more than 25
years, they are still being continued as contract employees and they
are paid a meagre consolidated pay of Rs.7,500/- for several years,
though it is now increased to Rs.10,000/-. It is also his submission
that these employees have been denied DA, HRA, LTC, Medical
Reimbursement, Pension for all these years.
Government should be a model employer when there is
regular work and when the petitioners have been continuously
working for more than a decade, terming them as contract workers
and depriving them the salary of a regular employee and all other
benefits attached to the salary of a regular employee, that too by the
Government cannot be appreciated. Exploiting the helpless condition
of these women employees and forcing them to work on consolidated
salary which is less than the salary of a fourth class employee,
amounts to violating their right to life. In fact Government should
have taken necessary steps long back and regularized the services of
all such women employees who are working as Anganwadi Workers
and Supervisors Grade II.
wp_20036& 21029_2013
NBK, J
I see considerable force in the submissions of Sri S.
Ramachandra Rao and it appears that great injustice is being done to
these petitioners without regularizing their services in the regular
sanctioned posts. Issuing impugned notification to fill up the posts of
Supervisors Grade-II, prima facie appears to be violating the
fundamental rights of the petitioners and some of the petitioners may
lose the opportunity of regularization of their services before they
attain the age of retirement if the impugned notification is not
suspended.
In the circumstances, there shall be interim suspension as
prayed for.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file counter.
Post after four weeks."
11. Further, in this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India 1, wherein the apex
Court, by referring to State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi 2, held as
follows:
26. While the judgment in Umadevi (supra) sought to curtail the
practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often
misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-
serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between
"illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that
employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly
sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten
years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when
institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of
employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal,
but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government
departments often cite the judgment in Umadevi (supra) to argue that
no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where
regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the
judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against
employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
2024 INSC 1034
(2006) 4 SCC 1
wp_20036& 21029_2013
NBK, J
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative
for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and
stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for
extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the
organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour
standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and
undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of
unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the
principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This
approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive
precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the
overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
12. This writ petition is of the year 2013. We are now in 2025. The
respondent-Government having selected and appointed the petitioners
against the sanctioned posts at relevant time by following due selection
process, and having utilized their services for decades, cannot now
subject them to a fresh selection processto compete against the same
vacancy in which they are working for decades. In that view of the
matter, and considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jaggo (supra)and also Umadevi(supra), this Court finds the prayer of
the petitioners lawful, and this is a fit case to exercise extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct
regularization of the petitioners in accordance with law.
13. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed, directing the
respondent-Government to pass appropriate orders regularizing the
services of the petitioners. In view of the settled law, the petitioners
would be entitled for counting their past service, prior to regularization,
for pension and retirement benefits. The respondent-authorities are at
liberty to fill up any leftover vacancies after regularization of the
wp_20036& 21029_2013
NBK, J
services of the petitioners. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if
any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
19th August, 2025
ksm
