Telangana High Court
Dr.Govindraj B.Kulkarni vs The State Of Telangana on 28 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.9038 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is
filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a proper writ order or orders, particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not
regularizing the services of the petitioner while regularizing services of
similarly situated persons by issuing the G.O.Ms.No. 38 Higher Education
(CE) Department dated 05-09-2018 is arbitrary, illegal and discrimination
and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioner from the date of his discontinuing from service and to grant all
consequential benefits like arrears of salary and also future increments
and to pass..."
2. Heard Sri M. Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a
Post Graduate candidate and secured a Ph.D. in Chemistry. As such, he is
fully eligible for the post of Lecturer. Therefore, in pursuance of the
advertisement issued by the Madhu Malancha Society, i.e., inviting
applications for the post of Lecturer in the year 1997, the petitioner, after
undergoing a process of selection as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.12
dated 10.01.1992, including an interview, was appointed as Lecturer in
Chemistry, and he joined duty on 10.06.1997. Although the appointment
PK, J
of the petitioner was named as a temporary post, he was treated as a
permanent employee and he was also given increments as were given to
the regular lecturers. It was further submitted that the petitioner is
entitled and eligible for the permanent post under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated
22.04.1994, whereby, the Government had formulated a scheme for
regularization and absorption of the persons working on daily-wage/NMR
or consolidated pay. It was further submitted that the Government had
issued G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 12.03.2003, taking over a number of Junior
Colleges, including the petitioner's College, but their posts were not
admitted into grant-in-aid, despite the fact that they were appointed
through a Selection Committee. Therefore, the petitioner and seven others
were constrained to file W.P.No.5412 of 2003. Thereafter, several writ
petitions were filed before this Court in respect of the same subject matter
and the batch of writ petitions were disposed of vide common order dated
15.07.2005 in W.P.No.5786 of 2003 and batch, directing the respondents
to continue the employees in service till a policy decision is taken by the
Government regarding regularization of services of part-time Lecturers in
aided posts, subject to availability of vacant posts.
4. It was further submitted that the Government preferred a writ
appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge vide
W.A.No.101 of 2006, which was allowed vide judgment dated 09.03.2007,
PK, J
setting aside the aforesaid order dated 15.07.2005 in W.P.No.5786 of 2003
and batch. Challenging the said judgment of the Division Bench, the
petitioner approached the Hon'ble Apex Court and filed C.A.No.2712-2713
of 2010, which was disposed of on 13.10.2016. While so, a scheme was
formulated by the Government vide Memo.No.10029/CE/A2/2014-4 dated
19.01.2015, wherein, the Government favoured direct recruitment to the
above subjects in which, the teachers working in un-aided posts should
also be given an opportunity to compete along with others, provided they
fulfill all the eligibility criteria, except the upper age limit, which should be
fixed to 45 years. It was also decided to give a weightage of ten marks to
the un-aided lecturers who worked for more than ten years and an
increase of marks each year, subject to a maximum of fifteen years.
Further, in compliance of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
Government had also issued G.O.Ms.No.38, Higher Education
Department, dated 05.09.2018, regularizing the services of the un-aided
teaching and non-teaching staff with prospective effect, however, applying
the said G.O. to only the Andhra Bhashabhi Vardhini College, Janagaon
District. In the said circumstances, the petitioner made a representation
to the respondents on 15.12.2022, seeking to extend the same benefit of
regularization of his services, stating that he is also a similarly situated
candidate working in Madhu Malancha Degree College, Nizamabad.
PK, J
However, despite the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
respondents are not extending the similar benefit of regularization of the
services of the petitioner, which is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and in violation
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, learned
counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to pass necessary orders in the
present writ petition.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing
on behalf of the respondents, while admitting the fact that the petitioner
was appointed on 16.06.1997, submitted that the petitioner has
continuously worked in respondent No.4 College until 28.02.2011, as an
un-aided lecturer in B.Sc., and his salary was being paid by the
Management after duly meeting the expenditure derived from the un-aided
self-financed courses. The appointments were made through a due
process of selection but the same were done at the instance of the
respective private management rather than with the intervention of the
Government or any assistant as that of the aided posts. Therefore, the
entire process involves a direct relationship between the management and
such employees, and as such, nothing can be attributed as against the
Government. Further, as the petitioner was appointed during the year
1997 and as he did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212,
Finance Department, dated 22.04.1994, his services were not regularized
PK, J
under the said G.O. It was further submitted that the Government, vide
G.O.Ms.No.9, Higher Education Department, dated 12.03.2003, issued
orders taking over the respondent No.4 College. In the said G.O., one of
the conditions i.e., condition No.5, specified that no member in the
teaching and non-teaching un-aided posts shall be taken over. Therefore,
since the post held by the petitioner is an un-aided post, he was not
admitted to grant-in-aid post.
6. It was further submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed
W.P.No.5412 of 2013 challenging the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.9
dated 12.03.2003, and the same was disposed of along with a batch of
cases vide common order dated 15.07.2005, wherein, it was observed as
follows:
"The policy decision that may be taken by the Government would
also equally apply to the case of the petitioners. Till the policy
decision is taken by the Government so as to regularize the
services of the Part Time Lecturers in the Aided posts, the
petitioners shall be continued in the posts, in which they are
working, on the same terms and conditions as existed as on the
date of taking over the college subject to the availability of vacant
posts and subject to the continuation of science faculty in those
colleges and also subject to availability of work."
7. In pursuance of the same, the services of the un-aided staff of the
College were continued in their respective posts and their salaries were
paid from the income derived from the tuition fee to the un-aided self-
financed courses. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a batch of Writ
PK, J
Appeals were filed vide W.A.No.94 of 2006 and batch, which was allowed
on 09.03.2007, setting aside the aforesaid order of the learned Single
Judge. Thereafter, the aggrieved parties filed an S.L.P.s before the Hon'ble
Apex Court vide S.L.P.No.14434-14435 of 2007, which was disposed of on
13.04.2014, without any positive direction. Further, the petitioner had
filed a contempt petition No.1911-1912 of 2017 in C.A.No.2712-2713 of
2010, and the same was closed with an observation that, 'we see no
reason to entertain this contempt petitions any longer'.
8. It was further submitted that the petitioner was continuously
working in respondent No.4 College as an un-aided lecturer up to
28.02.2011 only, and his name was not on the rolls from 01.03.2011.
Therefore, the case of the petitioner is not similar to those un-aided
teaching and non-teaching staff of the Andhra Bhashabhi Vardhini
College, Janagaon, whose services were regularized as a special case by
virtue of orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 05.09.2018. It was further
submitted that respondent No.2 vide its letter No.438/Admn.I/2011 dated
12.04.2018, has submitted a detailed report to the Government, informing
that there are no un-aided teaching and non-teaching staff on rolls of
respondent No.4 College, including the petitioner. Further, respondent
No.4 College was defunct from the academic year 2021, due to a lack of
admissions. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek such a direction for
PK, J
regularization where the services of the staff were regularized as a special
case as per the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 21.07.2016 in
I.A.Nos.56 and D.No.45290/2016 in C.A.No.2711 of 2010, and the same
shall not be a precedent in any manner. As such, there are not merits in
the case, and therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
9. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties.
10. A perusal of the record discloses that the Hon'ble Apex Court
disposed of a batch of cases vide C.A.No.2711 of 2010 along with
C.A.Nos.2712-2713 of 2010 on 13.05.2016, and the petitioner herein was
a contesting party therein. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment
reads as under:
"It is now submitted that the grievance of the appellants is covered by our
order dated 19.4.2016 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.4232-4236 of 2016.
Insofar as the present appellants are concerned, it is pointed out that they
are covered by the following part of our order dated 19.4.2016 passed in
Civil Appeal Nos.4232-4236 of 2016, which reads as under:-
"Though in our orders dated 13.10.2014 and 16.12.2014 we made a
reference to the other similarly placed Lecturers for the purpose of
formulating the Scheme, we are not giving any specific direction in
this order. However, we leave it open for the State Government either
to apply the Scheme which they have formulated in the Memo
No.10029/CE/A2/2014-4 dated 19.1.2015 to such similarly placed
Lecturers."
So, the very same relief will hold good for the appellants in these appeals."
PK, J
11. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed I.A.Nos.13-14 in C.A.No.2712-
2713 of 2013 seeking clarification of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court dated 13.05.2016, and the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order
dated 21.07.2016, clarified as follows:
"These applications are for clarification of our judgement and
order dated 13th May, 2016 and 19th April, 2016. Mr. Hegde, learned
senior counsel appearing for the applicants fairly submitted that the
applicants were 8 in number and the applications in which Ms.
AnjaniAiyagiri is representing the applicants, are four in number are
actually working in the institutions which come under the jurisdiction
of the State of Telangana after the bifurcation of the State of Andhra
Pradesh into the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. In such
circumstances, since our orders dated 19th April, 2016 as well as 13th
May, 2016 were based on the Scheme formulated by the State of
Andhra Pradesh dated 19th January, 2015, the question of extending
such benefits to those who are similarly placed as is claimed by the
applicants in the newly formed State of Telangana will have to be
examined independently on its own merits. We are not expressing any
opinion as to their entitlement for extension of the Scheme benefits
formulated by the State of Andhra Pradesh.
We also feel that if the applicants are similarly placed there
should be no difficulty for the State of Telangana also to consider the
extension in the interest of justice. However, we leave it open for the
State of Telangana to take its own decision as to applying the Scheme
formulated by the State of Andhra Pradesh or formulate its own Scheme
taking into account the long service put in by these applicants. We only
hope and trust that the State of Telangana will take appropriate
decision expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of
communication of this order. Such decision can be based on the
application of the applicants filed before this court and the present
order passed in this case."
12. The record further discloses that pursuant to the aforesaid judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 13.05.2016, respondent No.1 Government
issued G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 05.09.2019, regularizing the services of the
un-aided teaching and non-teaching staff with prospective effect. It is to
PK, J
be noted that the said benefit of regularization was specifically limited to
those un-aided teaching and non-teaching staff who had been
continuously working from the date of the Government taking over the
Andhra Bhashabhi Vardhini Degree College, Janagaon District, till the
issuance of the said G.O. Here it is pertinent to note that the respondents,
in their counter affidavit, have stated that the petitioner has been
continuously working in respondent No.4 College from the date of his
initial appointment in 1999 until 28.02.2011 only and that he was not on
rolls of respondent No.4 College w.e.f., 01.03.2011. Further, the letter
addressed by respondent No.4 to respondent No.2 vide
Ref.No.MMGDC/94/MSR/20/2016-17 dated 24.07.2017, also confirms
that the petitioner was no longer in service w.e.f., 01.03.2011. The same is
also evident from the letter addressed by respondent No.2 vide
Lr.No.438/Admn.I/2011 dated 12.04.2018, wherein, a detailed report was
submitted to the Government stating that there were no un-aided teaching
or non-teaching staff on rolls of respondent No.4 College, including the
petitioner herein.
13. Further, the Experience Certificate issued by respondent No.4 dated
10.12.2018, filed by the petitioner along with his reply affidavit, discloses
that the petitioner had continuously worked as a teaching staff member in
Chemistry from 16.06.1997 to 28.02.2011 only, and that he attended the
PK, J
college till the date of issuance of the said certificate only to assist the
office of respondent No.4.
14. From the above, it is indubitably clear that the services of the
petitioner herein were discontinued w.e.f., 28.02.2011. Given these
circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot claim
parity with those other employees whose services were regularized, as he
was not in continuous service at the relevant point of time. Further, it is
to be noted that respondent No.4 College has also become defunct from the
academic year 2021, due to a lack of admissions. In the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the judgments relied on by the petitioner are of
no avail to him.
15. In the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present
writ petition, and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall
stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________
JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
Date: 28.03.2025.
GSP
