Telangana High Court
V. Anjaneyulu, vs State Of Telangana, on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_6338_2017
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.6338 of 2017
ORDER:
The case of the petitioner, as per the writ affidavit, is that he holds a B.Com (Computer Applications) degree, a Diploma in Computer Applications, and Typewriting Higher Grades in both English (in 2001) and Telugu (in 2002). He was registered with the District Employment Exchange on 29.06.2000, and was selected for the post of Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator by the 4threspondent (Special Protection Force) through a selection process conducted on 09.07.2008, pursuant to a requisition made to Jyothi Computer Services vide Reference No. JCS/SPF/2008/7/9, dated 09.07.2008, and was appointed by proceedings dated 15.07.2008 on a contractual basis effective from 10.07.2008 in accordance with G.O.Rt.No.2501 Finance (SMPC) Department dated 13.07.2006; and since then the petitioner has served continuously and satisfactorily. The petitioner's appointment was made against a sanctioned post, and over the years, the State of Andhra Pradesh and, post-bifurcation, the State of Telangana, continued to approve and extend these contractual posts, including through G.O.Rt.No.1640 Home (Services-III) Department dated 14.11.2003, G.O.Rt.No.730 dated 28.05.2005, G.O.Ms.No.13 Finance (HRM-I) dated 01.07.2014, G.O.Rt.No.357 dated 25.10.2014, and G.O.Rt.No.890 dated 13.10.2015, thereby evidencing that the post held by the petitioner is regular in nature. Following G.O.Ms.No.16 Finance (HRM-I) Department dated 26.02.2016, which was issued pursuant to amendments made to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Appointments to 2 wp_6338_2017 NBK, J Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act as adapted to Telangana, providing for regularization of full-time contract employees working as on 02.06.2014 against sanctioned posts, the petitioner, having fulfilled all stipulated conditions under the said G.O. and Memo dated 26.02.2016 (at Annexure P15), submitted representations dated 02.03.2016, 07.06.2016, and 25.06.2016 for regularization. The 1strespondent, through various memos including Memos dated 10.03.2016, 05.05.2016, 18.05.2016, and 25.05.2016, sought further details from the 4threspondent, who responded through Letters dated 02.04.2016, 16.05.2016 and dated 20.07.2016, confirming the petitioner's appointment on contract basis on 10.07.2008 and current eligibility for a vacant Typist post in the department. However, by Memodated 09.09.2016, the 1strespondent arbitrarily rejected the petitioner's case for regularization, erroneously treating him as an outsourced employee and stating that the proposal was not in conformity with the applicable guidelines, despite the clear documentary evidence and appointment procedures establishing her status as a contract employee. The 4threspondent conveyed the government's decision vide Memo dated 01.10.2016. Alleging that the action of the respondents as arbitrary and discriminatory vis-à-vis the material on record including official G.O.s, memos, and selection orders, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 1stand 2ndrespondents to regularize her services as Typist/Data Entry Operator/Junior Assistant against the existing sanctioned vacancy in the office of the 4threspondent.
3wp_6338_2017 NBK, J
2. Heard Mr. A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mrs. A. Satyasree, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home). Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitionerwould essentially contend that the petitioner, a B.Com (Computers) graduate, has been continuously discharging duties as a Data Entry Operator in the Telangana Special Protection Force since 15.07.2008, having been appointed through Jyothi Computer Services pursuant to Rc.No.A1/92/SPF/04-2008 and G.O.Rt.No.730, Home (Ser-III) Department, dated 28.05.2005, read with G.O.Rt.No.2501, Finance (SMPC) Department, dated 13.07.2006. It is submitted that the nature of the petitioner's duties and the long tenure of uninterrupted service of over 15 years, along with the fact that hispost is one among the three DEO posts allotted to Telangana State post-bifurcation as per Rc.No.A1/SPF/47/2014, clearly establish that he is working against a regular post, and not merely in a stop-gap outsourced capacity. It is further contended that the Government of Telangana, having taken a policy decision under G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016, to regularize contract employees working in various departments, is bound to consider the petitioner's case as he satisfies the conditions laid down therein, including long-standing service, appointment through valid process, and performance of regular duties under official supervision. It is contended that the petitioner's categorization as an "outsourced" employee is arbitrary, as he has been functioning under the direct control of the department, and denial of regularization on such technical classification violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4wp_6338_2017 NBK, J
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, basing on the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 - Director of Telangana Special Protection Force (TSSPF), contends that the Special Protection Force was constituted under Act 25 of 1991 by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Government to provide armed protection to vital installations such as temples, dams, power projects, the RBI, High Court, Telangana Secretariat, and residences of Hon'ble High Court Judges. The petitioner, a B.Com (Computers) graduate, was appointed as a Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator on an outsourcing basis via Rc.No.A1/92/SPF/04-2008 dated 15.07.2008, following G.O.Rt.No.730, Home (Ser-III) Department dated 28.05.2005 and G.O.Rt.No.2501, Finance (SMPC) Department dated 13.07.2006, through Jyothi Computer Services, Hyderabad, with the Government having permitted engagement of seven Computer Operators on a consolidated pay after abolishing all regular sanctioned posts. Pursuant to the State bifurcation, three DEO posts were allocated to Telangana, and the petitioner has been working in one of them since 02.06.2014 as per Rc.No.A1/SPF/47/2014, but continues to be an outsourced employee, not working against any regular post as wrongly claimed. The Government of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Department dated 26.02.2016 with policy guidelines for regularization of contract employees, subject to certain conditions, and the same was adapted by Telangana with suitable modifications, but the petitioner, being an outsourced worker, cannot claim regularization as a matter of right. Further, it is the State Government's discretion to consider regularization, and this respondent had already written letters to the Government vide Office Letters dated 02.04.2016, 16.05.2016, 5 wp_6338_2017 NBK, J 30.05.2016, and 20.07.2016, forwarding the petitioner's case and remarks for further necessary action. It is reiterated that the petitioner is not a contract employee but an outsourced one, receiving salary through Jyothi Computers, and thus his claim lacks factual basis, and therefore the writ petition is devoid of merit.
5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the petitioner, a B.Com (Computers) graduate, was appointed as a Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator on a contractual outsourcing basis through Jyothi Computers Services, Hyderabad, vide Rc.No.A1/92/SPF/04-2008 dated 15.07.2008, pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.730, Home (Ser-III) Department, dated 28.05.2005, and in accordance with G.O.Rt.No.2501, Finance (SMPC) Department, dated 13.07.2006. Following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, three such DEO posts were allocated to Telangana State, and the petitioner has been serving in one of these positions in the Telangana Special Protection Force (TSSPF) as per Proceedings Rc.No.A1/SPF/47/2014 dated 02.06.2014. The petitioner contends that he is working in a regular post and seeks regularization of his services under G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016.However, the respondents clarify that the petitioner is engaged on an outsourcing basis, not as a contract employee, and his remuneration is disbursed through the authorized agency, Jyothi Computers Services. The regular/sanctioned posts of typists/stenographers in the department were abolished, and the department annually requests the government for the continuation of outsourcing posts. The claim that the petitioner is working in a regular post is therefore factually incorrect.Regarding the 6 wp_6338_2017 NBK, J applicability of G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016, the respondents have already forwarded the petitioner's case to the government for consideration, as evidenced by letters dated 02.04.2016, 16.05.2016, 30.05.2016, and 20.07.2016, and it is within the discretion of the state government to decide on the regularization of services, subject to the fulfillment of conditions specified in the aforementioned G.O.Furthermore, this Courthas struck down Section 10-A of the Telangana Education Act, which enabled the regularization of contract employees, declaring it unconstitutional and contrary to public policy. In that view of the matter, the petitioner's claim for regularization cannot be countenanced, as he is an outsourced employee, not a contract employee, and the regularization policy under G.O.Ms.No.16 has been declared unconstitutional.
6. Accordingly, thewrit petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 28th May, 2025 ksm 7 wp_6338_2017 NBK, J THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.6338 of 2017 28th May, 2025 ksm