Telangana High Court
Fairooz Fatima, Hyd. vs Prl. Secy., Higher Education And 4 Ors. on 31 October, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4862 OF 2011
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:
"... to declare the action of the 4th and 5th respondent in not allowing the petitioner to perform her normal duties as an attender or cashier w.e.f. 01.10.2006 is against the principles of natural justice and the same is illegal, arbitrary. Consequently, to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as an attender in service with all consequential benefits such as arrears of difference of salary to the petitioner by re-fixing the pay scale of the petitioner by directing the respondents 1 to 3 to absorb / regularize the services of the petitioner in an aided vacant post of attender or in any other class IV vacant aided post by redeploying the services of the petitioner in any other needy government colleges in the state of Telangana, along with all consequential benefits including for payment of pension along with arrears of pension to the petitioner by counting the service from the date of appointment w.e.f. 01-02-1993 till the date of realization....."
2. Heard Sri Sadu Rajeswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:
That the petitioner was initially appointed as an Attender on 01.02.1993 in the 4th and 5th respondent college and worked up to 01.09.2006. During this period, though she was appointed as an Attender, the management utilized her services as a cashier i.e. collecting fee from students. The petitioner's initial salary was Rs.750/- per month and thereafter her salary was enhanced from time to time and her last drawn salary as on 30.09.2006 was Rs.2,200/- per month.
However, from 01.10.2006, the petitioner was orally terminated from service without any valid reason and in spite of her attending duties; she was not permitted to sign in the attendance register nor paid the salary from 01.10.2006. No written termination order was issued to her. Thus, petitioner was handicapped to approach this Court for redressal.
4. The petitioner passed the Secondary School Certificate (S.S.C.) examination in 1983; completed the "Foundation Course in Computer Concepts" on 02.07.1992 with 61% i.e. A grade; passed a Departmental Test conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (A.P.P.S.C.) in 1993; and passed Typewriting (English Lower) conducted by 3 the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh, in 1984.
5. The 4th and 5th respondent college had issued a service certificate to the petitioner earlier, but it was misplaced. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained a duplicate service certificate dated 18.02.2011. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.12.2001 passed the following order in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil).. CC 8994/2001, which was preferred against the order dated 27.04.2001 in W.P.No.14641 of 1999 on the file of this Court:
"In the meanwhile, status quo obtaining as on today, shall continue, until further orders of this Court. Tag with SLP ( c ) Nos.15947- 15962/2001."
6. Despite the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.M.P.No.17836 of 1999 in W.P.No.14541 of 1999 dated 08.07.1999, the minimum scale was not paid to the petitioner. The management of the 4th and 5th respondent had addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent seeking permission to fill four vacant Aided Non-Teaching post as per proceedings dated 30.03.1996. A reminder letter dated 03-10-1997 was sent by the management of 4th and 5th respondent to the 3rd respondent requesting approval for filling up the posts of Non- 4 Teaching Staff. The petitioner is fully qualified and is entitled for an absorption / regularization in the post of Attender.
7. The petitioner was appointed as an Attender on 01.02.1993 in the 4th and 5th respondent college, but the college management utilized the services of the petitioner as a cashier in receiving the fees from the students and the petitioner rendered service up to 31.09.2006 and since then the 5th respondent had not permitted the petitioner to sign in the register and not allowed to work. Thus, the petitioner was harassed and not paid the salaries and thus, the petitioner was compelled and forcibly to quit from the post from 01.10.2006 that too with oral termination even though the petitioner insisted the principal to issue any such order in written. But no written order was issued to the petitioner either in terminating from service or in removing from service.
8. The petitioner's last drawn pay was Rs.2,200/-as on the date of oral termination therefore the petitioner is entitled for the said pay and also the pay enhanced from time to time till the date of reinstatement.
9. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3702/2006 in the case of A. 5 Manjula Bhashini & Others Vs. M.D., A.P. Women's Coop. Fin. Corpn.Ltd. and another and other Civil Appeals were disposed with a common order and at para No.43, it is held as follows:
"In the result, the appeals filed by the employees are dismissed and those filed by the state Government and agencies/instrumentalities of the state are allowed. The declaration made by the Division Bench that the ban on regularization will be effective from 19-08-1998 i.e. the date on which the Act No.27 of 1998 came into force and that all persons who have completed 5 years of service as on that date would be entitled to be considered for regularization of service is set aside. It is however made clear that the daily wage employees and others who are covered by section 7 of the 1994 Act, (amended) and whose services have not been regularized so far shall be entitled to be considered for regularization and their services shall be regularized subject to fulfillment of the conditions enumerated in G.O. dt 22-04-1994 with a view to obviate further litigation on this issue we direct the Government of A.P its officers and agencies/instrumentalities of the state to complete the exercise for regularization of the services of eligible employees within four months of the receipt/production of this order without being influenced by the fact that the application, Writ petition or appeal filed by any such employees may have been dismissed by the Tribunal or High Court or this Court some of the appeals decided by this 6 order relate to part time employee, we direct that similar exercise be under taken in their cases and completed within four months keeping in view the conditions enumerated in G.O.(P).No. 112 dated 23- 07-1997."
10. The petitioner joined as an Attender on 01.02.1993 in the 4th and 5th respondent college and as on the date of last drawn pay i.e. 31.09.2006, the petitioner completed more than 13 years and 8 months and the petitioner is entitled for regularization in view of the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 358 wherein at paragraph 8, the object behind the said direction in para 53 of is twofold all persons. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than 10 years of continuous service without protection of any interim orders of Courts or Tribunals before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered for regularization in view of their long service. It was also held that employees who have completed 10 years of service and did not possess the educational qualification prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be consider in suitable lower post. Thus, the petitioner is squarely covered by the above ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence prayed to allow this writ petition.
7
11. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counter and submits that, the petitioner Mrs. Fairooz Fatima, Ali was appointed on 01.02.1993 as Attender with a consolidated salary by the 4th respondent i.e., Mumtaz College, Hyderabad, without obtaining prior permission from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad, to fill up the aided vacant posts in the college and the condition imposed at the time of her appointment is purely temporary. The petitioner worked up to 01.09.2006 and she was terminated from attender duties we.f 01.10.2006.
12. The orders issued in G.O.Ms. No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 shall be made applicable to those who have put in a continuous service of five years as on 25.11.1993. Therefore, the request of the petitioner for regularization / absorption into Grant-in-Aid and for payment of salary attached to Attender does not arise, as she has completed only 9 months and 24 days of service as on 25.11.1993.
13. The petitioner was working at 4th respondent college i.e., Mumtaz College, Hyderabad, since 01.02.1993 in the vacancy 8 caused due to retirement of an attender working in an aided post of the college. The 4th respondent is not competent to fill up the aided vacancy as and when arises without taking prior permission from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, the competent authority. In order to avoid dislocation in the college work, the college is appointing persons in the vacancies caused due to retirement of regular employees initially on daily wages and are given consolidated pay after some time and later given the scale of enable to them to draw enhanced pay every year. But at no point of time they are given the impression that their services would be regularized in the aided vacancies.
14. The petitioner is an attender (Un-Aided) who is working in Mumtaz College, Hyderabad, is not eligible for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212. Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994, as she has completed only 9 months and 24 days of service as on 25.11.1993. As per the said G.O., it requires five years of service as on 25.11.1993. As such, the petitioner in question is short of required five years as on 25.11.1993 which is a pre-requisite condition in the said G.O.Ms.No.212.
15. The method of regularizing the NMR/Daily wages employees has been laid down in G.O.MS.No 212 Fin & Plg 9 dated: 22.04.1994. The foremost condition in terms of the said Government orders is the services of the persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years and are continuing on 24.11.1993 be regularized by the appointing authorities subject to fulfillment of the following conditions.
1. The persons appointed should possess the qualifications prescribed as per rules in force an on the date from which his/her services have to be regularized.
2. They should be within the age limits as on the date of appointment as NMR/Daily wage employee.
3. The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and backlog will be set-off against future vacancies.
4. Sponsoring of candidates from Employment Exchange is relaxed.
5. Absorption shall be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per work-load excluding the vacancies already notified to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission/District Selection Committee.
16. The contention of the petitioner to regularize their services in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court of India whenever an employee completed 5 years of service is not correct because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini & Others Vs M.D., A.P. Women's Co-Operative 10 Finance Corporation Ltd & ANR (2009) INSC 1135 (6 July, 2009) has held that:
"the question which remains to be considered is whether the Division Bench was justified in holding that all daily wage employees who completed 5 years service on the date of enforcement of Act No. 27 of 1998, i.e., 19.8.1998 would be entitled to be considered for regularization of their services. A reading of paragraphs 54, 67, 68 and 72 of the impugned judgment shows that even though the Division Bench did not find the cutoff date i.e. 25.11.1993 specified in first proviso to Section 7 for determining the eligibility of daily wage employees for regularization to be arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory, yet it changed the said date from 25.11.1993 to 19.8.1998 solely on the premise that Act No. 27 of 1998 was enforced with effect from that date. in our view, once the Division Bench negatived the challenge to the validity of Act Nos.3 of 1998 and 27 of 1998, there was no warrant for altering the date of eligibility specified in first proviso to Section 7 of the 1994 Act and thereby extend the zone of eligibility of daily wage employees who could be considered for regularization. As a corollary, we hold that the declaration made by the Division Bench that all persons who completed 5 years service as on the date of coming into force of Act No.27 of 1998 would be entitled to be considered for regularization of their services is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside".
Thus, the condition of 5 years continuous service as on 25.11.1993 has become mandatory. Therefore, the petitioner 11 herein has not satisfied the conditions of completing of 5 years continuous service as on 25.11 1993.
17. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its order date 06.07.2009 in the case of A Manjula Bhashini Vs MD Women's Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited had upheld the validity of (AP. Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and rationalization of staff pattern and pay structure) Act-2/1994 as amended by Acts 3 and 27 of 1998 so also the cutoff date as fixed for continuance of their services subject to the required period of service as on 25.11 1993.
18. The contention of the petitioner to regularize her services in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court of India is not correct. Further, in the state of Assam Vs. Ajit Kumar Sharma (AIR 1965 SC 1196) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no mandamus could be issued against the State directing it to provide Grant-in-aid that what grants the State should be made to private educational institutions and upon what terms, were matter for the State to decide and, in the absence of any statutory provision governing such grant, no mandamus could be issued directing the State to provide grant-in-aid. Following the said judgment, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No. 8697/2005, dated 07.11.2005 observed 12 that no private educational institution or an employee of such an educational institution had a legal right to compel financial assistance by the State.
In the foresaid circumstances, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits in its entirety and is liable to be dismissed.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
19. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was appointed as an attender on 01.02.1993 and worked up to 01.09.2006. Sometimes the management utilized the petitioner's services as a cashier also. Petitioner was initially paid Rs.750/- per month and thereafter the salary was enhanced from time to time and the minimum scale to the said post was Rs.2,500 - 4,550/- p.m. The petitioner's pay was enhanced to Rs.2,200/- per month till 30.09.2006 (wrongly mentioned as 31.09.2006). Thereafter, the petitioner's services were orally terminated. Even this minimum of scale is also for certain employees as per Court directions in W.P.No.14541 of 1999. Against the W.P.No.14541 of 1999, some of the petitioners went to Supreme Court also and the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil).. CC 8994 of 2001. In the said case, the Supreme Court passed the following order: 13
"54. Keeping in view of the prospective effect given to Act 27 of 1998, all persons who have completed 5 years of service as on the date of coming into force thereof would be entitled to be considered for regularization of their services. By reason of the validating Act, the judgment of this court cannot be said to have been overruled, in the meanwhile, status obtaining as on today shall continue until further orders of this court."
Ultimately, the above appeal was dismissed on 06.07.2009.
20. The contention of the petitioner is that, four vacant posts of attenders were shown by the management and sought for permission to fill up the vacant aided non-teaching posts as per the proceedings dated 30.03.1996 itself, which was addressed to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad. After the request letter for approval of non-teaching posts, reminded the same to the authorities on 03.10.1997. As per the pleadings of the petitioner, there is no further development in the request of approval. The petitioner is fully qualified and entitled for absorption/regularization in the post of attender.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka V. L. Kesari 1 decided on 03.08.2010. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, rendered on 10.04.2006, (reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 in 1 2010(1) Decisions Today (SC) 358 14 which, they extracted para No.53 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"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], R.N. Nanjundappa [1972(1) SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [1979 (4) SCC 507] 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 10 years or more but without the intervention of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals. The question of regularization 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 above referred 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 regularize as a onetime measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that required 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..."
5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against regularization enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled... 15
22. Out of the said conditions, No.1 condition is that the employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or Tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
23. In the case on hand, the petitioner in her own affidavit stated that she worked as an attender on temporary basis and her post was not against any sanctioned post. Hence, the Umadevi case is not applicable in the present case.
24. As per the submission of the respondent authorities, the G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 shall be made applicable to those who have put in a continuous service of five years as on 25.11.1993. If G.O. has to be applied, the persons must and should work minimum five years of service, whereas the petitioner worked only for 9 months and 24 days as on 25.11.1993. As such, the said G.O. is not applicable to the petitioner's case. Though in the counter at para No.6, the above said issue was discussed, there is no discussion in reply affidavit to that effect. Moreover, the petitioner filed service certificate, dated 18.02.2011, in the said certificate mentioned 16 as worked as Office Attender from 01.02.1993 to 01.09.2006. But, nothing is mentioned in the said certificate that whether she worked against the sanctioned post or not or her recruitment was made under any rules and regulations. In the said circumstances, the service certificate cannot be looked into.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner is not entitled to regularize her service. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
26. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J Date: 31.10.2025 BDR