APHC010341482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17368 Between: P. Seshamamba The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHALLA SIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17368 OF 2025 AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: CHALLA SIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17368 OF 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the Petitioner’s representations dated 13.11.2020 and 23.01.2024 to re-engage and appoint as History Lecturer on par with disturbed employees in Zone-IV, who were re-engaged vide Proceedings in Rc.No.Ser.II/2/2021834/2023, dated 16.03.2023 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading for filing the Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner was appointed as History Lecturer on contract basis in Government Junior College, Gonegundla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District on 08.08.2008, after due selection process. The Petitioner worked till the academic year 2012-13 and her employment was disturbed as regular junior lecturers were appointed in the College. Similarly situated Contract Lecturers, who were discharged from their respective postings in lieu of appointment of regular lecturers, had given representations to the public representatives seeking for re-engagement in the available vacancies. The Special Commissioner, Intermediate Education addressed a letter to Respondent No.1 on 13.03.2020 providing information to re-engage contract faculty, who were disturbed. The name of the Petitioner was not included in the said list. Upon knowing the same, the Petitioner gave representations on 10.11.2020 and 13.11.2020 to include her name for re-engagement as History Lecturer. 3. On 15.10.2020 vide Memo No. 1054962/1E/A1/2020 accorded permission to the Special Commissioner, Intermediate Education to re-engage (46) disturbed Contract Lecturers. The Respondent No.2 on 16.03.2023 vide Rc.No.Ser.II-2/2021/ 834/2023 after due correspondence with the Respondent No.1 instructed all the Regional Joint Directors to re-engage contract lecturers as per the Government Memo dated 27.01.2023 vide Memo No.1054962/1E- A1/2019-4. As the case of Petitioner was not considered, the present Writ Petition was filed. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that though the Petitioner had submitted representations dated 10.11.2020 and 13.11.2020 to the Respondent Authorities with a request to re-engage and appoint him as History Lecturer on par with disturbed employees in Zone-IV, the same was not considered by the Respondent Authorities. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II for the Respondents would contend that the Petitioner ought to have filed Writ Petition at an earlier point of time only and that there is no right to seek for re-engagement on contract basis. 6. Heard Sri Challa Sivasankar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-II for the Respondents. 7. In the considered view of this Court, in the event, the Petitioner qualifies all the parameters for appointments and non consideration of the Petitioner does not appear to be fair and Petitioner should be treated at par with re-engaged contract employees. As regards the contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents with regard to delay, this Court opines that the delay is only to the disadvantage of the Petitioner and considering the nature of the employment i.e contract employment, the delay would not have any consequence as salary would be paid from the date of contract only. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with following directions: i) The Respondent Authorities are directed to consider the representations of the Petitioner dated 13.11.2020 and 10.11.2020 for re-engagement as History Lecturer on par with contract lecturers, who were permitted to reengage by the Respondent No.1 vide Memo dated 27.01.2023, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken thereon to the Petitioner accordingly. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 14.07.2025 KK