Telangana High Court
.Bandaru Ravi vs The State Of Telangana on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_41740_2017 and
wp_5762_2019
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.41740 of 2017
AND
WRIT PETITION No.5762 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners were appointed as Fishermen on outsourcing basis.
They passed 7th class, and also undergone Certified Course in Fisheries at
Inland Fisheries Training Centre (IFTC), which are the qualifications
prescribed for appointment. The 1st and 2nd petitioners were appointed in
2008, the 3rd petitioner in 2007, and the 4th petitioner in 2003. It is their
case that they have been rendering services as per G.O.Rt.No.345, dated
09.07.2008; and they have been put on artificial breaks in service to avoid
continuity of service. The respondent authorities issued a Notification
dated 16.08.2017 for inducting 79 fresh candidates as fishermen on
temporary basis, by replacing the petitioners who are already working on
temporary basis for decades, with the unofficial respondents. Challenging
the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.41740 of 2017. Further, the
respondent authorities discontinued the petitioners as temporary fishermen
on oral instructions. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed
W.P.No.5762 of 2019.
2. Heard Mr. D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners; and
Ms. Shalini, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while making submissions on
the lines of writ affidavit, relies on the judgment of Hon' ble Supreme
wp_41740_2017 and
wp_5762_2019
NBK, J
Court in State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh1, Jacob M. Pathuparambil
vs. Kerala Water Authority 2, Shri Jaghnath vs. Union of India3,
Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation4,
Manish Gupta vs. President, Jan Bhagidar Samiti 5. He contends that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that temporary employees cannot be
replaced by another set of temporary employees, and that practical
experience would aid in effectively discharging the duties and it is harsh to
deny confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack
educational qualifications, and that an ad hoc cannot be replaced by
another ad hoc employee but only by a regular appointee by following
regular procedure prescribed. He contends that the petitioners are
rendering services for almost two decades in temporary capacity, and
further they are qualified to perform the duties of fishermen and the
authorities seeking to replace them by another set of temporary employees
by the impugned notification, and discontinuing the petitioners by oral
instructions is illegal and arbitrary.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, based on the counter
affidavit, would essentially argue that the petitioners, on an earlier
occasion filed W.P.No.33628 of 2017 contending that since the selection is
based on merit, unless the 2nd respondent conducts a qualifying
examination, the appointments cannot be made on contract basis; and this
Court by order dated 11.10.2017 dismissed the writ petition observing that
there is no basis in the contention of the petitioners' counsel that a written
examination has to be conducted. Learned Assistant Government Pleader
AIR 1992 SC 2130
AIR 1990 SC 2228
Writ Petition (Civil) No.651 of 1986
AIR 1990 SC 371
2022 (6) SCALE 780
wp_41740_2017 and
wp_5762_2019
NBK, J
further contends that the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis
(and not permanent), and that the Commissioner of Fisheries issued a State
wide Notification for uniform administration to appoint new candidates
based on merit; and referring to the seven candidates mentioned at
paragraph No.5 of the counter, it is contended that the candidates have
been appointed as per Integrated Fisheries Development Scheme and they
are performing duties in their respective capacities since 2017, and
therefore there is no merit in the writ petition.
5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the
record, it may be noted that the petitioners have been appointed, by taking
them from their respective outsourcing agencies, and their appointment
was approved by the District authority; for instance, the "Order of
Appointment/Offer letter on Outsourcing Basis" (placed at material page
No.30 of the writ petition) would show that the petitioner No.1-Bandam
Ravi from "Sree Sairam Outsourcing Agencies" have been appointed as
Fisherman and his appointment has been approved by the District
Collector, Khammam. Further, the petitioners have the academic
qualification of 7th class. The Experience Certificate in the case of 3rd
petitioner-Singaram Ramesh (at material page No.44 of the writ petition)
would show that the Fisheries Development Officer, Kinnerasaani Project
has certified that the services of the petitioner have been utilized in training
to Tribal Fishermen to develop the fishing skills and at seed farm at
Kinnerasani Project since 30.03.2015 to 24.06.2015. The educational
qualifications and experience certificate documents are not disputed by the
respondents.
wp_41740_2017 and
wp_5762_2019
NBK, J
6. The petitioners are admittedly temporary fishermen working for
almost two decades and have the necessary qualifications to perform their
jobs. Furthermore, the impugned Notification dated 16.08.2017 was issued
for appointment of 79 new fishermen on temporary basis, with the same
qualifications as possessed by the petitioners. As per the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Piara Singh (supra), the petitioners who are
temporary workers, and admittedly qualified and possesses necessary skills
and expertise in performing the duties of fishermen, cannot be suddenly
replaced by another set of fresh temporary workers merely for the
purported uniformity of recruitmentState-wide. Even in that case the
petitioners cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that they are
temporary workers, when the new incumbents are also appointed as
temporary workers. Furthermore, even as per the experience certificates
issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioners have also imparted
training to Tribal Fishermen in fishing skills and at Seed Farm. Further, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India 6referred to the
judgment in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi 7, and held that selective
application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively
weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable
services over decades.
7. In the instant case, it is to be noted that the dismissal of earlier writ
petitionof the petitioners on the ground that the contention that there ought
to have been a qualifying examination could not be countenanced, for, it is
an admitted fact that the petitioners who are temporary fishermen
rendering unblemished services for decades, and also trainers in fishing
2024 INSC 1034
(2006) 4 SCC 1
wp_41740_2017 and
wp_5762_2019
NBK, J
skills to tribal fishermen, are now sought to be replaced by another set of
temporary fishermen, more so when the petitioners possess all the skills
necessary even as per the impugned notification dated 16.08.2017, and
therefore discontinuation of petitioners from services is patently illegal and
cannot be sustained in law, and therefore the writ petitions deserve to be
allowed.
8. Accordingly, the writ petitionsareallowedwith a direction to the
respondent authorities to continue the petitioners in their respective duties
and wages as applicable, with consequential benefits as entitled as per law.
No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
28th May, 2025
ksm
wp_41740_2017 and
wp_5762_2019
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.41740 of 2017
AND
28th May, 2025
ksm
