Dr. Nagaraja Masagani, R.R. Dist vs Prl Secy, Higher Education Dept., Hyd ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6759 Tel

Telangana High Court

Dr. Nagaraja Masagani, R.R. Dist vs Prl Secy, Higher Education Dept., Hyd ... on 26 November, 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

              WRIT PETITION No.14065 OF 2016

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and absorption of his services against the existing grant-in-aid post in Lecturer of Commerce in the 3rd respondent-College from the date of his initial appointment to the said post, on par with the Lecturers, whose services were regularized by relaxing the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CEI-2) Department, dated 10.1.1992, in G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated 27.3.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.328, Education (CE-III) Department, dated 15.10.1997 with all consequential benefits, by duly setting aside the Memo No.2424/CE/A2/2017, dated 01.07.2017 issued by the 1st respondent - State Government rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization of his service as Lecturer in Commerce as illegal and pass..."

2. Heard Sri T. Surya Karan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel,

argued on behalf of Sri K. Sita Ram, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I

appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available

on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) Initially, the petitioner worked as a Lecturer in

Commerce in New Government Degree College, Khairtabad,

Hyderabad, on consolidated pay, during the academic year

1994-95 and 1995-96 on par with regular Government

lecturers. Subsequently, in response to the Newspaper

advertisement made in Deccan Chronicle, dated 16.11.1996, by

respondent No.3 for appointment to the post of Lecturer in

Commerce on consolidate payment with annual increments @

10% on the said consolidated amount. The petitioner applied

for the said post and got selected and appointed as a Lecturer

in Commerce in the 3rd respondent College with effect from

25.11.1996 i.e., academic year of 1996-97. In fact, the post of

Lecturer in Commerce, which was advertised, is a post

admitted to grant-in-aid and against the said post, recruitment

Notification was given for appointment on consolidated pay.

(b) The petitioner resigned from the New Government

Degree College, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, and joined as a

Lecturer in Commerce in the 3rd respondent-college on

25.11.1996 and since then he has been continuing till date.

The petitioner was working against the grant-in-aid post i.e., in

a clear vacancy, and is entitled for regular appointment as a

Lecturer in Commerce. Even though the petitioner is fully

eligible and qualified for regular appointment, in spite of

putting 21 years of service, the respondents are not taking any

steps for regularization of petitioner's service in the existing

grant-in-aid vacancy. Despite there being vacant six sanctioned

aided posts in the said cadre, the respondents filled only one

vacancy, reserved for scheduled Tribe on regular basis, in the

year 2001.

(c) The petitioner filed W.P.No.17123 of 2001 before this

Court and the same was disposed of on 03.07.2013, directing

the respondents to consider the fresh proposals sent by the 3rd

respondent-college, dated 11.10.2012, in respect of petitioner's

absorption against the grant-in-aid post within a period of six

weeks and pass appropriate orders. The Government, vide

Memo No.9038/CE-II.2/2013-2, Higher Education (CE-II)

Department, dated 24.12.2013, passed orders rejecting the

case of the petitioner for regularization of his service and

admission into grant-in-aid. Pursuant to the same,

consequential proceedings were issued by the 2nd respondent

vide R.C.No.367/AdmisV2/2013, dated 13.11.2014. The

petitioner is working as a Vice Principal in the 3rd respondent-

college with effect from 27.06.2013.

(d) The above said impugned orders were issued

rejecting the petitioner's case on two grounds i.e., the 3rd

respondent-college, while appointing the petitioner had not

followed the required procedure as contemplated in

G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CEI-2) Department, dated

10.01.1992, and further as per the orders issued in

G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated

27.03.2006, there was a general ban in filling up of vacant

aided posts in private Aided Degree Colleges. The Government,

in fact, relaxed the procedure contemplated under

G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CEI-2) Department, dated

10.01.1992, for selection of Lecturers in the Aided Colleges and

regularized their services against the aided posts. By

considering the orders of this Court in various writ petitions,

some of the candidates' services were regularized and absorbed

in the aided posts in several colleges, in spite of the orders

issued in G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CE.II-1)

Department, dated 27.03.2006.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to appreciate the proposals

dated 12.11.2012, 25.07.2013, 08.08.2013, 21.09.2013 and

25.07.2013 respectively sent by the 3rd respondent for the

purpose of regularization and absorption in grant-in-aid post,

even though several orders, as stated above, were issued in

respect of similarly situated persons.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

the 1st respondent-State Government contended that the G.O.

Rt. No. 256, Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated

11.5.2012, issued in respect of Smt. B.D.J. Satya Latha and

others, wherein their appointments as Lecturers in the un-

aided posts, were through, duly constituted Selection

Committee, after obtaining approval from the competent

authority. Smt. B.D.J. Satya Latha and others were appointed,

vide Proceedings Rc. No. 451/Admn.VI-2/2000, dated

28.9.2002, that means, they have not fulfilled the conditions as

per G.O. Ms. No. 328, Education (CE.III) Department, dated

15.10.1997, as per the said G.O., one should have completed 5

years of service as on 25.11.1993. That means the Government

relaxed the conditions laid down in G.O. Ms. No. 328,

Education Department, dated 15.10.1997 in respect of the

above said case but rejected petitioner's case on untenable

ground, stating that petitioner was not appointed after

selection by the valid selection committee, is illegal. Further,

the G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department,

dated 27.03.2006 is also relaxed, in the above said case, since

the regularization orders were issued in the ban period,

Imposed in G.O. Ms. No. 35, Higher Education (CE.II.1)

Department, dated 27.3.2006.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

the other case pertains to the regularization of service of one

Sri V. Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer, vide G.O.Rt. No. 311,

Higher Education (IE) Department, dated 16.12.2014. That the

Government contends that there is no similarity of the

petitioner's case with that of Sri V. Premachandrudu's case.

The G.O.Rt.No.311, Higher Education (IE) Department, dated

16.12.2014, itself makes clear that earlier Sri V.

Premachandrudu's case was rejected, because he had not

fulfilled the terms and conditions prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.

328, Education Department, dated 15.10.1997 i.e., one should

have completed the service of 5 years as on 25.11.1993, since

he was appointed only on 26.07.1993 and from the above it is

clear that Sri V. Premachandrudu, is also not having 5 years of

service as on 25.11.1993. Thus, the Government issued orders

in G.O. Rt. No. 311, Higher Education (IE) Dept., dt.

16.12.2014, by duly relaxing the G.O.Ms.No. 328, Education

Department, dated 15.10.1997, in case of Sri V.

Premachandrudu.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

the G.O.Rt.No. 311, Higher Education (IE) Department, dated

16.12.2014, issued on the basis of earlier cases of

regularization issued in favour of Sri Dr. R.V. Anuradha and

Smt. K. Meghamala, in which G.O. Ms. No. 12 and G.O.Ms.No.

328 were relaxed. Even though Sri V. Premachandrudu belongs

to SC/ST category, he was to be appointed by following

selection procedure and by a valid selection committee, which

was specified in G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CE.II)

Department, dated 27.3.2006. Hence while issuing G.O. Rt. No.

311, Higher Education (IE) Department, dated 16.12.2014, the

State Government relaxed in G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education

(CE.II) Department, dated 27.03.2006 and also G.O.Ms.No. 12,

Education (CEI-2) Department, dated 10.1.1992. The above

said fact is clear from the Commissioner's affidavit, filed on

22.09.2014 in the Court of law. It is also clear from the Letter

Rc. No. Admn.1/449/2014, dated 12.08.2014 by the

Commissioner that in the case of Sri V. Premachandrudu, the

Government relaxed G.O.Ms. No.12, G.O. Ms. No. 328 and G.O.

Ms. No. 35. Appointment order proves that he was not

appointed by the Selection Committee dated 26.07.1993.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in

the case of G.O.Rt.No.269, Sri Mohd. Naseeruddin Farooqui,

and 3 others were regularized by the Higher Education (CE/A2)

Department, dated 13.11.2014, even though they were non-

technical staff, G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance (PC.III) Department,

dated 22.4.1994, will be applicable i.e., the relevant G.O. 212 is

for non teaching person and G.O. Ms. No. 328, Higher

Education (CE.III) Department, dated 15.10.1997, is for

teaching persons. In this case also the State Government

relaxed G.O. 35 l.e., ban on appointment.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

thus for all the reasons stated above, that the impugned order

issued in Memo No. 2424/CE/A2/2017, dated 01.07.2017,

issued by the 1st respondent, is illegal. The 1st respondent

ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for

regularization of his service in the category of Lecturer in

Commerce as was done to similarly situated persons whose

services were regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.311, Higher Education

(IE) Department, dated 16.12.2014, G.O.Rt.No.269, Higher

Education (CE/A2) Department, dated 13.11.2014 and G.O.

Rt.No.256, Higher Education (CE.II.1) Department, dated

14.05.2012. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

10. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter

and submits as follows:

(a) That the petitioner was appointed as a Part-time

Lecturer in Commerce in the 3rd respondent College on

25.11.1996 without following the prescribed procedure for

recruitment of Lecturers in Private Aided Colleges. The

Government through G.O.Ms.No.12 Education (CEI-2)

Department, dated 10.01.1992 had prescribed procedure of

selection of Lecturers in private Colleges. The Management of

the 3rd respondent College has not followed the prescribed

procedure as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No. 12.

(b) The Government in its G.O.Ms.No.328/Edn., dt.

15.10.1997 issued orders for regularization of services of Part-

time Lecturers in Aided Colleges with certain conditions. The

foremost condition for regularization of Part-time Lecturers is

that, only those who have put in service of 3 academic years as

on 30.07.1991 or 5 academic years as on 25.11.1993 as the

case may be and also continuing in service as on the date of

issue of the order, dated 15.10.1997, are eligible for

regularization. As 120 days are considered to be reasonable

number of working days for an academic years the PTLs and

PTLS should have put in 360 working days as on 30.07.1991

or 600 working days as on 25 11.1993.

(c) The petitioner was appointed as a Part-time

Lecturer by the Management of the 3rd respondent College on

25.11.1996, as such he had not fulfilled the conditions of

putting in of required service as per G.O.Ms.No.328/Edn., dt.

15.10.1997. Moreover, the Government through G.O.Ms.No

283 Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated 03.09.1999

annulled the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms.No.328, Education

(CEIII) Department, dated 15.10.1997. The petitioner has filed

W.P.No.17123 of 2001 praying for his absorption into Aided

post. The High Court through orders dt.03.07 2013 passed the

following directions:

"Respondent Nos.1 (the Government) and 2 (Commissioner of Collegiate Education) to consider the above representations of respondent No.3 and to pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order"

(d) In view of the Orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the

Government (1st respondent) through Memo No.9038/CE

11.2/2013-2, Higher Education (CEI) Department, dated

24.12.2013 had rejected the request of the petitioner for

regularization of his service as Lecturer in Commerce on the

following Grounds:

01. The management of S.D. Signodia College of Arts & Commerce & PG Centre, Hyderabad has not followed any procedure while appointing Sri. M. Naga Raja who was appointed as Part Time Lecturer in Commerce in the college.

02. The individual does not come under purview of G.O. Ms.No.328, Education, dated 15.10.1997, since he was appointed on 25.11.1996 and Said G.O was annulled by issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 283, Education, dated 03.11 1999.

03. The Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education (CEII-1) Department, Dated 27.03.2006 to the effect that:

a) There would be a general ban on filling up vacant aided posts in Private Aided Junior/Degree Colleges and Polytechnics through direct-recruitment, except in respect of

SC/ST backlog vacancies.

b) Vacant aided posts in Colleges and Polytechnics may be filled up by way of recruitment by transfer / promotion of an aided employee working in an aided post as per existing service rules, subject to however to the condition that the resultant vacant aided post in the lower cadre shall be taken out of Grant-in-aid.

(e) The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking

orders for relaxation of Selection procedure by relaxing the

orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.12 Education (CE1-2) Department,

dt.10.01.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.35, Η.Ε. (CE.II-1) Department,

dt.27.03.2006. The then Government ratified the illegal

appointments of several Lecturers, that does not mean that

this Government also commit similar irregularities against the

rules in force. If that is allowed the managements of the

colleges will fill up vacancies as per their Whims and Fancies

by recruiting their own candidates and it amounts to denying

the equal opportunity to the unemployed. Therefore, the

petitioner cannot equate his case on par with the cases

mentioned in the Affidavit.

(f) As on date, the Government has not framed any

policy for regularization of Part-time Lecturers working in Aided

Colleges. Therefore, the petitioner cannot not seek any

regularization that too relaxing the selection procedure as

prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.12 Education (CE.I-2) Department,

dated 10.01.1992 and ban orders imposed vide GO.ME No.35,

H.Е. (СЕ II-1) Department, dated 27.03.2006. If the relaxation

is given to the petitioner, it will lead lot of complications. The

orders as issued vide Government Memo No. 9038 / CE.II.2 /

2013-2, Higher Education (CE.II) Department, dated

24.12.2013 holds good and the petitioner has no fresh grounds

for filing Writ petition citing the same reasons.

(g) As per G.O.Rt.No.256, Higher Education (CE.II-1)

Department, dated 11.5.2012 is regarding Smt. B.D.J.Satya

Latha and 4 others wherein their appointments as Lecturer in

the un-aided posts, were through duly constituted Selection

Committee after obtaining approval from the Competent

Authority. That is not the case in the appointment of Sri

Nagaraja. Moreover, he was taken as a Part Time Lecturer only.

The other case pertains to the regularization of Sri V.

Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer vide G.O.Rt.No.311, Higher

Education (IE) Department, Dated 16.01.2014. There is no

similarity of that case with the present case of Dr. M. Nagaraja,

Part-Time Lecturer, because in the W.P.No.3994/2006 filed by

Sri V. Premachandrudu, the issue was that the Commissioner

of Intermediate Education had not approved the appointment

of Sri V. Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer in the aided post

mainly, mentioning that there is a ban on filling up vacant

aided posts vide Government Memo No.19753/PS-1/2004-1,

dated: 25-11-2004, but as per G.O. Ms. No.35, Higher

Education (CE.II-1) Department, dated:27.03.2006 ban was not

imposed for filling up of backlog SC vacancies and Sri V.

Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer was directed to be

appointed against the SC backlog vacancy by the Hon'ble

Court. In the present case of Dr. Nagaraja, there is no such

issue of applying the ban or backlog SC vacancy is involved.

(h) In the case of Sri Mohd. Naseeruddin Farooqui and

three others were regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.269, Higher

Education (CE/A2) Department, dated: 13.11.2014 in the aided

posts, but they are all non-teaching staff and not Lecturers, the

supreme Court in its SLP No.29508 to 29511 directed that

these should not be taken as a precedent in any other Case. In

the case of Dr. Nagaraja since he is a Lecturer, the

G.O.Ms.No.328, Education Department, dated. 15.10.1997 has

to be applied for regularizing his services in the aided post and

he does not fulfill the conditions of G.O. Ms. No.328, Education

Department, dated:15-10-1997 because of the following

reasons:-

As per G.O.Ms.No.328, Education Department, Dated 15.10.1997, only those who have put in a service of 3 Academic Years as on 30-07-1991 or 5 Academic Years as on 25-11-1993 as the case may be and also continuing in service on the date of issue of these orders are eligible for regularization of service in terms of above said G.O. Dr. Nagaraja Masagani was appointed as Part Time Lecturer in the un-aided post in 1996, thus he is not eligible for regularization of service in terms of the G.O. Ms.No.328, Education Department, dated: 15.10.1997 and the said G.O. is not in force.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

Government framed a policy vide G.O.Ms.No.328, dated

15.10.1997 to regularize the Part-Time Lecturers. As per the

said G.O., all the eligible Part-Time Lecturers were regularized

and the said G.O. was automatically annulled vide G.O.

Ms.No.283, Education, dated 03.09.1999 after 6 months.

Petitioner was not eligible as per the said G.O. The 3rd

respondent College engaged the petitioner on Part-Time basis.

The respondents have nothing to do with his appointment

against un-aided vacancy. If any aided vacancy arises, College

has to take permission from the competent authority by

following the procedure complete the selection by giving

opportunity to all the eligible candidates as per the Proceedings

issued in Rc.No.4996/PC1-4/95, dated 18.09.1995 and obtain

approval of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, for the

selected candidates. Admittedly, management has not followed

the said procedure. Hence the petitioner has no right to

claim absorption into aided post.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the

back door/illegal appointments are regularized by absorbing

into regular vacancy, the other eligible candidates would be

deprived of the employment. The orders as issued vide

Government Memo No.2424/CE/A2/2017, Higher Education

(CE) Department, dated 01.07.2017 quite legal and proper and

does warrant to interfere under Article 226 of constitution of

India. In view of the above, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition

as devoid of merits.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

13. Initially, the Writ Petition is filed to consider the case of

the petitioner for regularization of his services by relaxing the

orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.12, Edn. (CE.I-2) Department,

dated 10.01.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.35, High Education (CE.II-1),

Department, dated 27.03.2006 with all consequential benefits

by setting aside the Memo No.9038/CE-II.2/2013-2, dated

24.12.2013 issued by the 1st respondent and also

consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent.

14. After hearing the matter, initially, this Court granted

interim direction as follows:

"The request of the petitioner for regularization/absorption into aided post was rejected by the Government by order dated 24.12.2013 and the same was affirmed by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education vide proceedings dated 13.11.2014 which are challenged in this writ petition.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that rejection is on the ground that there was no compliance of the requirements before appointments are made as Lecturers by the Management of aided colleges. However, said condition was subsequently relaxed and appointments are granted to persons similarly situated to the petitioner. The orders of the Government passed to that extent are filed along with the writ petition book and reply affidavit and G.O.Rt.No.256, dt. 14.05.2012 is relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel.

After the bifurcation and formation of State of Telangana, two orders are passed by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.311, dated 16.12.2014 and G.O.Rt.No.269, dated 13.11.2014 which are similar to the claim of the petitioner and regularizations were granted.

Learned Senior Counsel also submits that petitioner is similarly situated and he is also entitled to be extended the same benefit. He further submits that the petitioner is due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation and if the benefit as prayed for is not extended even though vacancies are available in aided post, great prejudice would be caused.

Learned Government pleader opposes the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner's initial appointment was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed and it appears petitioner was appointed only on part time basis.

At this stage, no opinion is expressed on the rival contentions. However, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner duly taking note of the earlier orders passed by the Government referred to above. A decision to this extent be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Accordingly, the W.P.M.P., is disposed of."

15. Subsequently, after issuing of the above interim direction,

the respondent authorities issued proceedings vide Memo

No.2424/CE/A2/2017, dated 01.07.2017 by passing the

following Order:

"5. Regarding the three cases referred in the Judgment dt 07-04-2017 in WP No 14065/2016, one case as per G.O.Rt. No.256, Higher Education(CE.II-1) Department. dt. 11-5-2012 is regarding Smt. B.D.J. Satya Latha and 4 others wherein their appointments as Lecturer in the un- aided posts, were through duly constituted Selection Committee after obtaining approval from the Competent Authority. That is not the case in the appointment of Sri Nagaraja. Moreover, he was taken as Part Time Lecturer only. The other case pertains to the regularization of Sri V Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer vide G.O.Rt.No.311, Higher Education (IE) Department, dt 16-12-2014. There is no similarity of that case with the present case of Dr M Nagaraja, Part-Time Lecturer, because in the W. P. No. 3994/2006 filed by Sri V Premachandrudu, the issue was that the Commissioner of Intermediate Education had not approved the appointment of Sri V. Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer in the aided post

mainly, mentioning that there is a ban on filling up vacant aided posts vide Government Memo No. 19753/PS-1/2004-1, dt. 25.11.2004, but as per G.O.Ms. No.35, Higher Education (CE II-1) Department, dt 27-03- 2006 ban was not imposed for filling up of backlog vacancies and Sri V.Premachandrudu, Junior Lecturer was directed to be appointed against the backlog vacancy by the Hon'ble Court. In the present case of Dr. Nagaraja, there is no such issue of applying the ban or backlog vacancy is involved.

6. In the third case, Sri Mohd. Naseeruddin Farooqui and three others were regularized vide G.O.Rt No 200, Higher Education (CE/AZ) Dept., dated 13-11-2014 in the aided posts, but they are all non-teaching staff and not Lecturers, like Sri M. Nagataja Moreover, they were selected through a proper selection procedure, where the nominee of the Government was also present, which is not the case in the appointment of Sri Nagaraja. In the case of Brn Nugaraja since he is a Lecturer, the G.O.Ms. No.328. Education Department, dt.15-10-1997 has to be applied also for regularizing his services in the aided post and he does not fulfill these conditions of OO Ms No.328, Education Department. dt. 15-10-1997 because of the following reasons:

"As per 0.0.Ms.No.328, Education Department, dt.15-10-1997, only those who have put in a service of 3 Academic Years as on 30-07-1991 or 5 Academic Years as on 25-11-1993 as the case may be and also continuing in service on the date of issue of these orders are eligible for regularization of service in terms of above said G.O. As he was appointed as Part-Time Lecturer in the un-aided post in 1996, thus he is not eligible for regularization of service in terms of the GOMs No.328, Education Department, dt. 15-10-1997."

7. Hence, after careful examination of the above aspects/details/facts and circumstances and in compliance of the Order dt.07-04-2017 of the Hon'ble High Court W.P.M.P.No. 17550 of 2016 in W.P.No.14065 of 2016, the Government has arrived at a conclusion that regularization of the services of Sri Nagaraja in the aided post is not feasible for consideration. Hence, his claim is rejected.

16. A perusal of the above rejection orders, the respondent

authorities rejected the petitioner's case on the following

grounds:

i) Petitioner is appointed for the said post as a Lecturer in Commerce purely on temporary basis.

ii) As per the G.O. Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997 certain conditions were imposed for regularization of service of Lecturers and Junior Lecturers working in private aided Degree/private aided Junior Colleges, which reads as follows:

"5. Only those who have put in service of three academic years as on 30.07.1991 or five academic years as on 25.11.1993 as the case may be and also continuing in service on the date of issue of these orders are eligible for regularization..."

17. The contention of the authorities is that the petitioner is

not eligible for regularization of service in terms of the above

said G.O.

18. After the above rejection order passed by the 1st

respondent, the petitioner filed amendment petition vide

W.P.M.P. No.42761 of 2017 in W.P.No.14065 of 2016 to amend

the prayer of the Writ Petition as well as to add para Nos.5 to 9

after the 13th para in the main Writ Petition as additional

grounds and the same was allowed on 22.11.2017.

19. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner

retired from service as Vice Principal Head of the Department of

Commerce, SD Signodia College, on 30.06.2018 on attaining

the age of superannuation.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

order passed by this Court in W.P. No.20954 of 1999 with

regard to regularization of services of similarly situated persons

as that of the petitioner. But the fact remains is that in the

said Writ Petition also, the applicant put up more than 10

years of continuous service and also she was in service as on

25.11.1993. As per the above said observations, the petitioner

is not entitled for the regularization of his services.

21. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the Full

Bench Common Order in W.P.No.27295 of 1998, and batch,

dated 09.11.2009 with regard to regularization of services. In

the said Common Order, para No.13 reads as follows:

"13. We, therefore, hold that the cutoff date i.e. 25.11.1993 requiring to have minimum period of service as on 25.11.1993 is also applicable in G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997 and unless and until the petitioners fulfill the minimum period of required service as on 25.11.1993 as stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997, they are not entitled for regularization of their service."

As per the said observation of the Full Bench in the

Common Order, dated 09.11.2009, the petitioner has not

fulfilled the minimum period of required service as on

25.11.1993. Moreover, in the present case, the petitioner's

appointment itself was in the year 1996. So, the completion of

minimum period of required service does not arise. Moreover,

subsequently, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh has

issued the G.O.Ms.No.283, dated 03.09.1999 with regard to the

annulment of G.O.Ms.No.328, Education (CEIII) Department,

dated 15.10.1997. The said G.O. reads as follows:

"In the first read above, Government approved a scheme for regularization of services of Part-time Lecturers / part- time Junior Lecturers working in private aided degree / private aided junior colleges. In the said G.O. Government have stipulated a time limit of 6 months for consideration of all case.

2. In the G.O. 2nd read above, Government have extended the time limit for the above scheme till 09.10.1998. This time limit is hereby further extended up to 31.10.1999.

3. As the purpose of the above schemes has been achieved, Government hereby annul the scheme

formulated in G.O.Ms.No.328, Education (CEIII) Department, dated 15.10.1997, with immediate effect."

22. In view of the above said observations and the

G.O.Ms.No.283, dated 03.09.1999 indicates that the purpose of

the scheme as per G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997 has been

achieved. After that the said G.O.Ms.No.328 was annulled with

immediate effect. When once the scheme is closed long back,

the question of regularization of the petitioner's service in

terms of the G.O.Ms.No.328 does not arise. Hence, this Court

is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the

respondent No.1 vide Memo No.2424/CE/A2/2017, dated

01.07.2017. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be

dismissed.

23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Dated: 26.11.2025

BDR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.14065 OF 2016

Date:26.11.2025

BDR