Telangana High Court
G.Mondaiah vs The District Educational Officer And 2 ... on 27 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.17117 of 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue, a Writ, Order or Orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of petitioner in the post of Attender or any Class-IV category post by strictly following the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court i.e., State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi (2006)4 SCC page1 and State fof Karnataka Vs ML Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court dated 19.09.2017 in W.P.No.27217 of 2017 with all consequential benefits by setting aside the impugned proceeding Rc.No.871/B3/2019 dated 28-2-2020 issued by the 1st respondent by holding that action of the respondents in not regularising the petitioner services to the post of Attender and indefinitely continuing the petitioner as part time sweeper is illegal, arbitrary discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India and pass..."
2. Heard Sri Ch. Jagannatha 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 was appointed as a part-time Sweeper in the existing vacancy available in the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Huzurabad (East) with a consolidated payment of Rs.75/- per month vide 2 PK, J W.P.No.17117 of 2020 proceedings dated 21.12.1984 issued by the then respondent No.1, and was later posted in the newly sanctioned post in the office of the Deputy Educational Officer, Huzurabad, vide proceedings dated 24.08.1991. While so, the then respondent No.1 issued proceedings Rc.No.1485/E2/97 dated 19.11.1998, absorbing the petitioner on regular basis and posted him at Government high School, Dhangarwadi, Karimnagar. However, after almost six months of the petitioner joining the post of Attender, the then respondent No.1 has issued proceedings Rc.No.1485/E2/97 dated 10.05.1999, reverting the petitioner as a part-time contingent employee, on the ground that he was erroneously absorbed as a Class-IV employee, as against the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997. As such, the petitioner was compelled to file O.A.No.2711 of 1999 before the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, wherein, initially, on 19.05.1999, status quo orders were granted, and eventually, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the O.A. vide order dated 27.04.2001, directing the respondents to regularize the service of the applicants, who fulfill the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997, irrespective of the fact that they have completed five or ten years of service as on 25.11.1993, provided, they were in service as on the cut-off date, that 3 PK, J W.P.No.17117 of 2020 too, without insisting for the availability of a clear vacancy. However, assailing the said judgment, the Government has filed W.P.No.5032 of 2002 before this Court and obtained a stay of the Tribunal's order vide order dated 21.03.2002. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 03.01.2004, respondent No.1 permitted the petitioner to join duty as part-time sweeper in the office of the Deputy Educational Officer, Huzurabad.
4. It was further submitted that the aforesaid writ petition filed by the Government vide W.P.No.5032 of 2002 was subsequently disposed of vide order dated 20.08.2009, once again, directing to consider the case of the petitioner and other employee for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 or G.O.(P).No.112 dated 23.07.1997, as the case may be. Thereafter, as per the instructions of respondent No.2 dated 20.07.2010, respondent No.1 had directed the concerned Mandal Educational Officer vide proceedings dated 25.08.2010, to furnish the service particulars of six part-time sweepers, including the petitioner herein, which were accordingly furnished by the Deputy Educational Officer, Huzurabad, through letter dated 18.09.2010. It was further submitted that while the things stood thus, respondent No.2 has requested respondent No.3, vide letter dated 10.08.2011, to regularize the services of five part- 4
PK, J W.P.No.17117 of 2020 time sweepers, including the petitioner herein, as he had completed eight years and eleven months of service as on 25.11.1993. Accordingly, respondent No.3, vide Memo.No.1935/Ser.II/2011 dated 22.08.2011, directed respondent No.2 to examine the proposals sent through letter dated 10.08.2011 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.565 dated 24.10.1992 and also as per item No.2 of G.O.(P).No.112 dated 23.07.1997, on the eligibility of educational qualifications and also the required ten years of service rendered as on 25.11.1993, for regularization of service as part-time employees. In spite of the same, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 15.07.2019, requesting respondent No.2 to regularize his services as Class-IV employee. Respondent No.1, through his letter dated 28.07.2019, requested respondent No.2 to issue necessary instructions to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the order of this Court dated 20.08.2009 in W.P.No.5032 of 2002. Accordingly, respondent No.2 also directed respondent No.1 to examine the case of the petitioner for regularization with reference to the Government Memo dated 22.08.2011, as the petitioner fulfills the requisite conditions stipulated in the said Memo.
5. Learned counsel contended that in spite of specific directions in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.1 has now passed the 5 PK, J W.P.No.17117 of 2020 impugned order vide Proc.Rc.No.871/B3/2019 dated 28.02.2020, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has not completed ten years of service as on 25.11.1993, in terms of G.O.(P).No.112 dated 23.07.1997 and the same is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and subversive of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was also contended that paragraph 8 of the impugned order has mechanically and erroneously held that the petitioner is not eligible for regularization in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 1, which runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the said judgment held at Paragraph 53. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the Union of India, State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize, as a one-time measure, the service of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten or more years in the duly sanctioned post but not under the cover of orders of Courts or Tribunals, and subject to verification as to whether they are working against a vacant post and possess qualifications for the said post, if so, to regularize the services of such employees. It was further submitted that following the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 6 PK, J W.P.No.17117 of 2020 Uma Devi (supra) and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari 2, a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.27217 of 2017, held that the daily-wage employees or part-time employees, who have completed ten years of service, are entitled for regularization in terms of paragraph 53 of Uma Devi (supra). It was submitted that the petitioner herein had completed ten years of service by the year 1994 itself as he was initially appointed in a sanctioned post on 1984. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for regularization in the post of Attender. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2020 passed by respondent No.1.
6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents, while admitting the fact that the petitioner was appointed as part-time Sweeper at the officer of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Huzurabad (East) on 21.12.1984 and that his services were absorbed on regular basis as Attender vide proceedings dated 19.11.1998, submitted that the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Hyderabad, issued orders to revert the regularized part-time Sweepers and instructed to report them in respective original place vide proceedings dated 22.04.1999, as the 2 (2010) 9 SCC 247 7 PK, J W.P.No.17117 of 2020 part-time sweepers were regularized against the rules mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.(P).No.112 dated 23.07.1997. Subsequently, the petitioner was reverted as part-time Sweeper and was posted at the officer of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Huzurabad, vide proceedings dated 10.05.1999. It was further submitted that the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, deciding to regularize the services of those employees who have been continuously working for a minimum period of five years and are continuing as on 25.11.1993, be regularized, subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated therein. It was also submitted that G.O.(P).No.112 dated 23.07.1997 was issued, in pursuance of a scheme formulated under the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act No.27 of 1998) and it was decided that the services of those employees, who have been continuously working for a minimum period of ten years and are in service as on 25.11.1993, be regularized by the appointing authorities, subject to the fulfillment of conditions stipulated therein. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Sweeper on 21.12.1984 and as per G.O.(P).No.112 dated 23.07.1997, he had 8 PK, J W.P.No.17117 of 2020 completed only eight years and eleven months of service as on 25.11.1993. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for regularization of his services in the post of Attender, as he is not covered within the zone of conditions stipulated in the said G.O. Hence, his request for regularization was rightly rejected vide impugned order dated 28.02.2020. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Union of India and others v. Ilmo Devi and another 3
7. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed as a part-time Sweeper in the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Huzurabad, in an existing vacancy vide proceedings dated 21.12.1984 and his services were later regularized as an Attender vide proceedings dated 19.11.1998. However, the said regularization was later cancelled and the petitioner was reverted to the post of part-time Sweepervide proceedings dated 10.05.1999. The petitioner assailed the said order before the Tribunal in O.A.No.2711 of 1999, which was allowed in his 3 (2021) 20 SCC 290 9 PK, J W.P.No.17117 of 2020 favour vide order dated 27.04.2001. Thereafter, the respondents approached this Court and filed W.P.No.5032 of 2002, against the order of the Tribunal, and the said writ petition was disposed of, directing the respondents to re-consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of G.O.Ms.Nos.212 and 112 dated 22.04.1994 and 23.07.1997 respectively. However, ultimately, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner vide Memo dated 28.02.2020, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
9. As can be seen from the impugned order dated 28.02.2020, the claim of the petitioner for regularization was rejected on the ground that he had completed only eight years and eleven month of service as a part-time Sweeper. Here, it is relevant to refer to G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, whereby, the Government had laid down a policy to regularize the services of employees who had been continuously working for a minimum period of five years and were in service as on 25.11.1993, subject to fulfilling the conditions specified therein, which included the employees to possess the requisite qualification for the said posts and also that they were working against existing vacancies. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.(P).No.112 dated 23.07.1997, enhancing the minimum qualifying service from five to ten years. Therefore, according to the respondents, since the 10 PK, J W.P.No.17117 of 2020 petitioner had completed only eight years and eleven months of continuous service as on 25.11.1993, his case cannot be considered for regularization as per G.O.(P).No.112 dated 23.07.1997. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner fulfills the other eligibility criterion for regularization of his services.
10. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra), wherein, the Court had categorically distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments and carved out an exception for regularization in those cases where irregular appointments were made in the sanctioned posts and where the said employees had been continuing in service for ten years or more, without the benefit of orders from any Courts or Tribunals. The Hon'ble Apex Court made the following observation:
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of 11 PK, J W.P.No.17117 of 2020 tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
11. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in M.L. Kesari (supra), also categorically held that where a worker had completed more than ten years of service without the shelter of an order from any Court and had been working against a sanctioned post, their claim must be examined in the light of paragraph 53 of Uma Devi (supra). The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
"8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.12
PK, J W.P.No.17117 of 2020
9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter."
12. Admittedly, the petitioner, who possessed the requisite qualifications, was appointed in an existing vacancy of a sanctioned post and he had rendered his services for more than ten years as on the date of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra). Therefore, this Court is of the view that the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) squarely applies to the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as a one-time measure.
13. As regards the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the respondents, in Ilmo Devi (supra), it is distinguishable on facts as the petitioner herein was appointed against a sanctioned vacancy and continued in service without any interruption. Therefore, the said decision is of no avail to the respondents.
14. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 28.02.2020 is unsustainable, and is therefore, liable to be set aside.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order vide Rc.No.871/B3/2019 dated 28.02.2020 issued by 13 PK, J W.P.No.17117 of 2020 respondent No.1, and the respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra), and pass appropriate orders thereon strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 27.06.2025.
GSP