Telangana High Court
Syed Samiullah Quadri S/ O Syed Chand ... vs The State Of Telangana Rep By Its ... on 13 March, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.2350 of 2017
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"to issue appropriate Writ or
any other order or direction particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
a) To declare the action of the
Respondents in not regularizing the
petitioner services as was done in
similarly placed persons as illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India.
b) to Declare that the petitioner
is entitled and eligible for regularization
with effect from 01.12.1997 with all
consequential benefits and c direct the
respondents to regularize the petitioner
services with effect from 01.12.1997
with all consequential benefits in the
interest of justice."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed
as an Attender in Lateefia Arabic College, Mogalpura,
Hyderabad, on a consolidated salary in 1988. He has been
continuously rendering his services for over 29 years
without any complaints. He contends that a sanctioned
post of Attender fell vacant on 01.12.1997 due to the
promotion of an incumbent and that he has been working
against the said post. The respondent college, a minority
institution, forwarded proposals for his regularization,
which were considered by the Government but remained
pending due to administrative delays. Further case of the
petitioner is that he is entitled to regularization under
G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, which provides for the
regularization of employees appointed on daily
wage/consolidated pay who continued in service as of
25.11.1993. He further relies on various judgments,
including A. Manjula Bhashini v. State of A.P., R.L.
Kesari v. State of Karnataka, and Umadevi v. State of
Karnataka, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
long-serving employees should not suffer due to
administrative delays in regularization.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I oppose
the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner was
appointed privately, without following due process, and
that G.O.Ms.No.212 is not applicable to him as Lateefia
Arabic College is not a government-owned institution.
Learned Government Pleader also contend that a blanket
ban on recruitment in aided institutions was imposed
under G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 27.03.2006 and that aided
degree courses are no longer conducted in the college.
4. Upon a careful perusal of the records, it is evident
that the petitioner has been in continuous service since
1988 and that the college submitted multiple proposals for
his regularization and he meets the eligibility criteria under
G.O.Ms.No.212 as he has completed more than five years
of service before the cutoff date of 25.11.1993. It may be
noted that in Writ Petition No. 13772 of 2008, this Court
held that employees fulfilling the conditions under
G.O.Ms.No.212 were entitled to regularization, irrespective
of their designation as contingent workers. Further, in M.L.
Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld
retrospective regularization from the date of eligibility. The
inaction of the respondents, despite the petitioner's clear
entitlement and the settled legal position, is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, this Court finds merit in the petitioner's claim
for regularization.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing
the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders
regularizing the service of the petitioner, in accordance
with G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
It is made clear that the petitioner shall be eligible for
notional benefits only, and shall not claim any
retrospective monetary benefits on account of this order.
No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Date: 13.03.2025
Smk
