APHC010579002022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD W.P.Nos.34268, 35092 of 2022 & 28466 of 2023 & C.C.No.6400 of 2023 W.P.No.34268 of 2022 Between: 1. DR DASARI PRADEEP KUMAR, M.D(HOMOEO), S/O LATE SUBBARAO, AGED 38 YEARS, HINDU-SC(MADIGA), MALE, OCCUPATION. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, DR.GURU RAJU GOVERNMENT HOMOEO MEDICAL COLLEGE, GT..GDIVADA-521301, KRISHNA DISTRICT, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF D.NO.1-551, KESAVARAJU KUNTA, 3RD LINE, ONGOLE-523001, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. WP WITH REGARD TO PETITIONER NO.1 IS WITHDRAWN AS PER C.O. DT 20/08/2024 VIDE IA 1/24 IN WP 34268/22 AND 7 OTHERS. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE(I.2), GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND 6 OTHERS. ...RESPONDENT(S): W.P.No.35092 of 2022 Between: 1. DR.DASARI PRADEEP KUMAR, M.D(HOMOEO), S/O LATE SUBBARAO, AGED 38 YEARS, HINDU-SC(MADIGA), MALE, OCCUPATION- ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN PRACTICE OF 2 MEDICINE, DR.GURU RAJU GOVERNMENT HOMOEO MEDICAL COLLEGE, GUDUVADA-521301, KRISHNA DISTRICT, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF D.NO.1-551, KESAVARAJU KUNTA, 3RD LINE, ONGOLE-523001, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. WP WITH REGARD TO PETITIONER NO.1 IS WITHDRAWN AS PER C.O. DT 20/08/2024 VIDE IA 1/24 IN WP 35092/22 AND 7 OTHERS. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE(I.2), GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND 6 OTHERS. ...RESPONDENT(S): W.P.No.28466 of 2023 Between: 1. DR DASARI PRADEEP KUMAR M.D(HOMOEO), , S/O LATE SUBBARAO, AGED 38 YEARS, HINDU-SC(MADIGA), MALE, OCCUPATION ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, DR.GURU RAJU GOVERNMENT HOMOEO MEDICAL COLLEGE, GUDUVADA-5213.01, KRISHNA DISTRICT, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF D.NO.1-551, KESAVARAJU KUNTA, 3RD LINE, ONGOLE-523001, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. WP WITH REGARD TO PETITIONER NO.1 IS WITHDRAWN AS PER C.O. DT 20/08/2024 VIDE IA 2/24 IN WP 28466/23 AND 7 OTHERS. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, , MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE(1.2), GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND 7 OTHERS. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PRASANNALA KANCHARLA 3 2. MULLAPUDI SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER I 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3. GP FOR SERVICES IV 4. GP FOR SERVICES I 5. V.VENKATA NAGA RAJU (SC FOR APPSC) C.C.No.6400 of 2023 Between: 1. DR DASARI PRADEEP KUMAR(WITHDRAWN), , M.D(HOMOEO), S/O LATE SUBBARAO, AGED 38 YEARS, HINDU-SC(MADIGA), MALE, OCCUPATION ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, DR.GURU RAJU GOVERNMENT HOMOEO MEDICAL COLLEGE, GUDUVADA- 521301, KRISHNA DISTRICT, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF D,NO.L-551, KESAVARAJU KUNTA, 3RD LINE, ONGOLE-523001, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. PETITIONER NO-1 IS WITHDRAWN FROM THE CONTEMPT CASE AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 20/8/24 VIDE IA NO-1 OF 2024 IN CC NO-6400 OF 2023 AND 7 OTHERS. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. DR S B RAJENDRA KUMAR LAGHIMSETTI IRS, IRS, S/O L.MALLIKARJUNARAO , AGED 42 YEARS, HINDU, MALE, WORKING AS COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH (HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE), GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA-522503, NTR DISTRICT AND 4 OTHERS. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PRASANNALA KANCHARLA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. VADAPALLI RAMESH 4 The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: W.P.Nos.34268, 35092 of 2022 & 28466 of 2023 & C.C.No.6400 of 2023 Heard Sri Mullapudi Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners/Contempt Petitioners; Sri Vadapalli Ramesh, learned Government Pleader for Respondents and Sri N. Rupeshwar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Venkata Nagaraju, learned Standing Counsel for APPSC. 2. Since parties in these Writ Petitions are one and the same, with the consent of the parties, all of them are heard together and are being disposed of by this Common Order. 3. The Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.34268 of 2022 and W.P.No.35092 of 2022 have challenged the Notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) (Respondent No.4) bearing Notification No.15/2021 dated 28.09.2021 and the consequential Supplemental Notification No.15/2022 dated 26.09.2022 are under the challenge. The same Writ Petitioners filed W.P.No.28466 of 2023 challenging the relieving orders issued to them dated 25.10.2023 which is the consequence of the Order passed by the Respondent No.8 dated 02.03.2022 bearing Memo No.300655/F2/2016-6 rejecting the request of the Writ Petitioners to regularize their services. Submissions of the learned Counsel for Petitioners 4. The facts as narrated by Sri Mullapudi Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners are that the Writ Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors on contractual basis in Dr. Gururaju Government Homoeo Medical College, Gudivada between the years 2008 and 2014. 5. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that the Writ Petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis and were paid Minimum Time Scale since the dates of their appointments and continued as such until the termination of their services from 02.03.2022. The Writ Petitioners would rely on 5 G.O.Ms.No.254 dated 01.02.2011 to contend that the Writ Petitioners were appointed as against regular vacancies as notified in G.O.Rt.No.254 dated 01.02.2011 and since they have continued for a long time (for about a decade), they are entitled to regularization. It is their case that the contractual agreement that was executed on non-judicial stamp paper was being renewed from year to year; that vide Notification No.15/2021 dated 28.09.2021, the Official Respondents have notified for filling-up of 24 vacancies out of 34 vacancies with a view to consider the Writ Petitioners for regularization of their services in the un-notified vacancies; whereas, the Official Respondents, without proper application of mind, had issued Memo No.300655/F2/2016-6 dated 02.03.2022, thereby rejecting the request of the Writ Petitioners to regularize them. Consequently, the Official Respondents have issued a Supplemental Notification for filling-up of those 10 vacancies through regular recruitment process vide Supplemental Notification No.15/2022 dated 26.09.2022. The Writ Petitioners apprehend that they will not be able to participate in the selection process under the above two Notifications inasmuch as they have become age barred in terms of the impugned Notifications and that the Government has never undertaken the regular recruitment drive for the last 10 years or so. Para No.7 of the said Notification has fixed a maximum limit of 42 years as on 01.07.2021 and in the case of SC/ST/BCs and EWS, there is a relaxation of age of five years and in respect of Physically Handicapped Persons, there is a relaxation of age by 10 years. Submissions of the learned Counsel for Respondents 6. The contesting Respondent No.2 had filed the Counter Affidavit on 28.11.2022 and an Additional Affidavit on 05.05.2023. 7. Sri Vadapalli Ramesh, learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No.2 has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the Counter Affidavit. He would state that the Writ Petitioners were appointed vide G.O.Rt.No.1325 dated 23.08.2008 between the years 2012 to 2014 only on contract basis; that the said G.O.Rt.No.1325 dated 23.08.2008 is issued for 6 selecting 10 Specialty Teachers (Homoeo) on a contractual basis under the centrally sponsored scheme for a period of one year. It is stoutly contended by the Official Respondents that neither any selection process nor any procedure had been adopted for appointing the Writ Petitioners during that time. A walk-in interview was conducted and they were selected on a first-come-first-serve basis. It is stated in the Counter Affidavit that no paper Notification was given nor was any merit order followed. It is also stated that when the appointments took place between the years 2008 and 2014, the Official Respondents have not followed either the Rule of Reservation or the Roster system. Even the Presidential Order as regards the local and non- local cadres was not followed. 8. It is submitted that the Writ Petitioners were appointed on contractual basis by executing an Agreement on a non-judicial stamp paper for a period of one year and they were continued upon renewal of contract on a year to year basis. 9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 would therefore submit that since the Writ Petitioners were not subjected to any selection process, their cases could not be considered for regularization, and therefore, vide Memo No.300655/F2/2016-6 dated 02.03.2022, the Government has rejected the request of the Writ Petitioners for regularization. It is also submitted that on 01.02.2011, some regularizations have taken place but during that time, the Writ Petitioners were not even appointed. Upto July, 2012, the recruitment process was undertaken by the Ayush Department but from 30.07.2012 onwards, the recruitment process was entrusted to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC). Analysis 10. The above facts would indicate that the Respondents did not deny the fact that the Writ Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors between the years 2008 and 2014 on a contractual basis. The Government had issued Notification No.15/2021 on 28.09.2021 for regular appointments 7 through a proper recruitment process and the same was undertaken by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) therefore, from the year 2008 to 2014, upto 28.09.2021 (which is the date of Notification), for almost 13 years, proper recruitment was never undertaken by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. It is also an admitted fact that the Writ Petitioners were continued as Assistant Professors on contractual basis nearly for a decade and that would itself indicate that the Official Respondents were satisfied with the services rendered by the Writ Petitioners as Assistant Professors. Para No.7 of the Notification No.15 of 2021 dated 28.09.2021 has fixed the upper age limit as 42 years and relaxation as indicated above. Therefore, the Official Respondents ought to have fixed relaxation of age in the case of the Writ Petitioners and also ought to have fixed some marks in the form of weightage for the experience for each year of their service. Having exploited the services of the Writ Petitioners, it would be inequitable on the part of the Respondents to leave the Writ Petitioners on the cross-roads without granting a fair and reasonable opportunity to participate in the selection process under both the impugned Notifications. Admittedly, the total vacancies notified under both the Notifications are about 34 in number. Whereas the Writ Petitioners are now only about 8 in number at the time of filing of the Writ Petition because some of the Writ Petitioners have withdrawn from the Writ Petition during the pendency of these Writ Petitions, thereby reducing it about six or so. 11. The contention raised by the Official Respondent No.2 that the appointment of the Writ Petitioners as Assistant Professors, which is on contractual basis, was done without following any norms has not been controverted by the Writ Petitioners. However, as stated earlier, having taken into account the long service of the Writ Petitioners into consideration, the Official Respondents ought to have granted relaxation in age and also some provision to consider the teaching experience of the Writ Petitioners, which they have, for nearly about a decade and provide weightage in the form of marks. One other pertinent point to be remembered is that the Government, 8 through APPSC, had not undertaken a procedure for appointment of Assistant Professors on a regular basis, which had deprived a valuable opportunity to the Writ Petitioners. 12. In Para Nos.23 and 24 of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Khagesh Kumar and Others Vs. Inspector General of Registration and Others: 1995 Supp (4) SCC 182 it is held as under: 23. We are, however, of the view that in the event of the recruitment being made on the post of Registration Clerks on regular basis, the petitioners or other similarly placed persons should be given one opportunity of being considered for such appointment and they be given relaxation in age requirement provided for such appointment under the rules. During the process of selection weightage may be given for their experience to the Registration Clerks who have worked on daily-wage basis and suitable guidelines may be framed for that purpose by the Subordinate Services Selection Commission. 24. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment of the High Court is upheld with the following directions: (1) The petitioners or other similarly placed persons who were employed as Registration Clerks on daily-wage basis prior to 1-10-1986 shall be considered for regularisation under the provisions of Rule 4 of the Regularisation Rules provided they fulfil the requirements of Rule 4(1)(ii) and they have completed three years' continuous service. The said period of three years' service shall be computed by taking into account the actual period during which the employee had worked as Registration Clerk on daily-wage basis. The period during which such an employee has performed the duties of Registration Clerk under paragraph 101 of the Manual shall be counted as part of service for the purpose of such regularisation. (2) In the event of appointment on regular basis on the post of Registration Clerks, the petitioners or other similarly placed persons who had worked as Registration Clerks on daily-wage basis may be given one opportunity of being considered for such appointment and they be given relaxation in the matter of age requirement prescribed for such appointment under the Rules. (3) The Subordinate Services Selection Commission while making selection for regular appointment to the posts of Registration Clerks shall give weightage for 9 their experience to the Registration Clerks who have worked on daily-wage basis and shall frame suitable guidelines for that purpose. (emphasis supplied) (4) If any of the petitioners or other similarly placed person was required to perform the duties of Registration Clerk as an apprentice under paragraph 101 of the Manual, he may submit a representation to the appropriate authority setting out the full particulars of such employment within three months and the authority concerned, after verifying the correctness of the said claim, shall pass the necessary order for payment of emoluments on daily-wage basis for the period he is found to have so worked on the post of Registration Clerk. The said payment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of submission of the representation. 13. In Keshav Narayan Gupta and Others Vs. Jila Parishad, Shivpuri (MP) and Another : (1998) 9 SCC 78, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para No.5 as under: 5. We, therefore, do not see any reason to take a view different from the view taken by the High Court. It is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that these appellants have worked for 12 years by now and there are no complaints regarding their service. Hence, if any regular appointments are made, the cases of the appellants should also be considered by waiving, if necessary, the age bar. We see some force in this contention. We, accordingly, direct that when regular appointments to the posts at present occupied by the appellants are made, the cases of the appellants will also be considered along with the other applicants by waiving the age bar in the case of the appellants, if necessary. Until such regular appointments are made the appellants will continue to function on an ad hoc basis as of now. With these directions the appeals are dismissed. (emphasis supplied) 14. In Para Nos.32 and 34 of the Judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and Others : (2018) 13 SCC 560, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 32. On the one hand, we have the claim of 1.78 lakh persons to be regularised in violation of law, on the other hand is the duty to uphold the rule of law and also to have regard to the right of children in the age of 6 to 14 years to receive quality education 10 from duly qualified teachers. Thus, even if for a stop-gap arrangement teaching may be by unqualified teachers, qualified teachers have to be ultimately appointed. It may be permissible to give some weightage to the experience of Shiksha Mitras or some age relaxation may be possible, mandatory qualifications cannot be dispensed with. Regularisation of Shiksha Mitras as teachers was not permissible. In view of this legal position, our answers are obvious. We do not find any error in the view [Anand Kumar Yadav v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine All 3997 : ILR 2015 All 1108 : (2015) 8 ADJ 338] taken by the High Court. (emphasis supplied) 33. Question now is whether in the absence of any right in favour of Shiksha Mitras, they are entitled to any other relief or preference. In the peculiar fact situation, they ought to be given opportunity to be considered for recruitment if they have acquired or they now acquire the requisite qualification in terms of advertisements for recruitment for next two consecutive recruitments. They may also be given suitable age relaxation and some weightage for their experience as may be decided by the authority concerned. Till they avail of this opportunity, the State is at liberty to continue them as Shiksha Mitras on same terms on which they were working prior to their absorption, if the State so decides. (emphasis supplied) 15. In University of Delhi Vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union and Another : (2021) 16 SCC 71, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para Nos.23 and 24 as under: 23. It is true that, as on the day when the judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was delivered by this Court, the contract employees had put in just about 3 to 4 years of service. But, as of now, most of them have completed more than 10 years of service on contract basis. Though the benefit of regularisation cannot be granted, a window of opportunity must be given to them to compete with the available talent through public advertisement. A separate and exclusive test meant only for the contract employees will not be an answer as that would confine the zone of consideration to contract employees themselves. The modality suggested by the University, on the other hand, will give them adequate chance and benefit to appear in the ensuing selection. (emphasis supplied) 24. We, therefore, direct that all the contract employees concerned engaged by the University be afforded benefits as detailed in Paras 6 and 7 of the affidavit dated 9-3-2021 with the following modifications: 24.1. The benefit of age relaxation as contemplated in Para 6 of the affidavit without any qualification must be extended to all the contract employees. 11 24.2. In modification of Para 7 of the affidavit, those employees who were engaged in the year 2011 be given the benefit of 10 marks in the ensuing selection process while for every additional year that a contract employee had put in, benefit of one more mark subject to the ceiling of 8 additional marks be given. In other words, if a contract employee was engaged for the first time in the year 2010, he shall be entitled to the benefit of 11 marks, while one engaged since 2003 shall be given 18 marks, as against the appointee of 2011 who will have the advantage of only 10 marks. The contract appointees of 2012 and 2013 will have the advantage of 9 and 8 marks respectively. 24.3. The public notice inviting applications from the candidates shall specifically state that the advantage in terms of the order passed by this Court would be conferred upon the contract employees so that other candidates are put to adequate notice. (emphasis supplied) 24.4. All the contract employees shall be entitled to offer their candidature for the ensuing selection in next four weeks and in order to give them sufficient time to prepare, the test shall be undertaken only after three months of the receipt of applications from the candidates. 16. In Choudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and Another Vs. Monika and Others : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3540, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para Nos.27 and 28 as under: 27. An underlying current throughout the Constitution is the theme of “social justice”. The Preamble, as well as Article 38 of the Constitution, enjoins upon the State instrumentalities the duty to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order, in which justice - social, economic and political - shall inform all the institutions of national life and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities. Whenever a conflict arises between the powerful and the powerless, social justice commands the Courts to lean in favour of the weaker and poorer sections where the scales are evenly balanced. 28. In this case, for the foregoing reasons, refusal to award any mark for experience to the first respondent would go against the grain of the constitutional duty of ensuring equality and securing social justice for the deprived. 12 17. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the passing of Rejection Order dated 02.03.2022, vide Memo No.300655/F2/2016-6 dated 02.03.2022 for regularization of the services of the Writ Petitioners is justified, and therefore, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the said Order by which the Government had rejected the request of the Writ Petitioners to regularize them. This finding is rendered because the Writ Petitioners were not subjected to any procedural norms when they were appointed as Assistant Professors on contract basis. However, as indicated above, the Writ Petitioners are entitled for relaxation in age and also entitled for availing benefit of their past experience for having served as Assistant Professors for nearly about a decade. If the recruitment process has not already been undertaken by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in terms of the impugned Notifications, the Official Respondents are directed to relax the upper age limit insofar as the present Writ Petitioners are concerned as one-time measure and also to award additional marks for each year of their experience as Assistant Professors in the form of weightage. If the recruitment process under the present Notifications is already completed, the same exercise in terms of age relaxation as a one-time measure and grant of weightage of marks for the past experience shall be accorded in the next Notification, whenever it is issued. The Writ Petitions are partly allowed in the terms as stated hereinabove. No Order as to Costs. 18. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. C.C.No.6400 of 2023 19. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the Official Respondents are not guilty of any contempt. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No Order as to Costs. 13 20. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 10.09.2025 L.R Copy to be marked JKS/DSV 14 45 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD W.P.Nos.34268, 35092 of 2022 & 28466 of 2023 & C.C.No.6400 of 2023 Dt:10.09.2025 L.R Copy to be marked JKS/DSV