IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 40774 OF 2022 Between: 1. A. Jayanna, S/o. Vasudevan, Aged; 52 years Presently working as Office Subordinate, O/o. Regional Inspection Officer, Board of Intermediate Education, Kurnool P.Srikanth, S/o.Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged: 31 years, Presently working as Office Subordinate, O/o. Board of Intermediate, Tadepalli, Guntur District. 2. ...PETITIONERS AND Board Intermediate Education, Represented by its Secretary, Andhra Pradesh, Tadepalli, Guntur District. Regional Inspection Officer, Board of Intermediate Education, Kurnool. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Principal Secretary, Education (IE) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, PIN. 522 238 1. 2. 3. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in view of long standing service i.e. 24 and 14 years as Office Subordinates in the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court and High Court of Andhra Pradesh in accordance with the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ^0: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated ill the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to continue the petitioners in service till their services are regularized. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI C. SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI N. RAJA RAJESWARA REDDY(STANDING COUNSEL FOR BIE) Counsel for the Respondent No.3:GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC01068'9152022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 40774/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) A Jayanna and Others AND „.RESPONDENT(S) Board Intermediate Education and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.C SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION RAJESWARA REDDY(STANDING COUNSEL FOR BIE) The Court made the following: 2.N RAJA ORDER- learned counsel for the petitioners and Heard Sri C. Srinivasa Baba learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the respondents. 2 ■*» 2. The Writ Petition has been filed services of the petitioners 1®* respondent. seeking regularization of the as ‘Office Subordinates’ in the Office of the 3. It is contended by the petitioners appointed in 1998, and the 2 that the petitioner was nd petitioner was appointed in 2009 as ‘Office Subordinates’ in the existing vacancies a daily wage basis in the services were categorized as unskilled have discharged their duties without 19 years, respectively. The petitioners services. However, the same on 1®' respondent Board. Their and semi-skilled. Further, the petitioners interruption for the last 24 and sought regularization of their Thus, the petitioners have Petition. have was not allowed. approached this Court by way of the present Writ The 1®* respondent filed government vide G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance 22.04.1994, has evolved NMRs, etc., where under regularization. One such condition is that a person seeking regularization should have been in service continuously for a minimum of five 25.11.1993. It is further stated that si 11.07.1998 and 01.06.2009 G.O.Ms.No.212, i.e. 25.11.1993, their claim for provisions of A.P. (Regulation of Appointments Rationalisation of Staff Pattern arid Pay Structure) 4. a counter affidavit stating that the (PC.Ill) Department, dated a scheme for regularization of daily certain conditions have been wage workers. prescribed for years as of since the petitioners were appointed on respectively, after the cut-off date specified under regularization under the to Public Services and Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994), 3 would not merit consideration. The respondents reiterate that regularization beyond the cut-off date cannot be considered. The 1®' respondent in its counter affidavit, referring to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A. Manjula Bhasini & Others Vs. The Managing Director, A.P. Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd. & another and other decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of G. Srinevasan Vs. The Divisionai Engineer and M. Loganathan Vs. The Principai Secretary, stated that the regularization of services of persons without following due process of law cannot be considered. It is further stated that the petitioners were engaged on a daily wage basis and are being paid the minimum time scale for the services rendered by them. 5. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs Union of india and Others ^, observed as under; “27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment Engaging workers temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also the organization to legal challenges and on a exposes undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards ^ 2024 see Online Se 3826 and sets a positive precedent for the thereby contributing to the practices in the country. ” private sector to follow, overall betterment of labour 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Srinivas Baba, further more than 25 and 14 years of argues that the petitioners have rendered service, respectively, and their duties employees. Referring to the 01.06.2009 are not dissimilar to those of regular appointment orders dated 11.07.1998 and respectively, learned counsel urges that the appointment to the petitioners was made against sanctioned After extracting work from the petitioners cannot be denied to Act 2 of 1994, it is submitted by the learned counsel that it would to the case of the petitioners. The learned posts in a clear existing vacancies, petitioners for such extended periods, the regard not apply counsel further draws the attention 1 respondent's Board Meeting, where petitioners' services was proposed. on a ground that is not sustainable. With of this Court to the agenda notes of the a discussion for regularization of the 8. Considered the rival submissions. 9. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have been rendering and 14 years, it is evident that organization. In the said circumstances their services without interruption for the last 25 their services are indispensable to the denying the claim of the petitioner fall within the parameters of G.O.Ms.No.212 sustainable. Undisputedly, the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners would or Act 2 of 1994 would not be were appointed in clear existing not 5 of sanctioned posts, and their services have remained vacancies unblemished. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar & Others Vs. Union of India & Others^ observed as under; 10. “8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations. ” In view of the same, placing reliance on decisions of the Hon’ble of Jaggo Vs Union of India and 11. Apex Court in the cases Others & Vinod Kumar & Ors vs Union of India, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to regularization of their services. In view of the foregoing, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation detailing the terms of their employment and also placing material particulars relating to their employment, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the said representation, the 1®* respondent shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of six (6) weeks, from the date of receipt of the representation filed by the petitioners, keeping in mind the law settled by the 12. on record such other ' (2024) 9 see 327 6 ys. Union of India and Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Others. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no 13. order as to costs. miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS assistant registrar SECTION OFFICER As a sequel, all pending //TRUE COPY// To Education, Andhra Pradesh, Secretary, Board Intermediate 1. The Tadepalli, Guntur District. 2 The Regional Inspection Officer Board of Intermediate Education, Kurnool. 3. The Principal Secretary, Education (IE) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Pradesh, Government of Andhra Guntur District, PIN. 522 238 Baba, Advocate [OPUC] Reddy(Standing Counsel for BIE) 4. One CC to Sri C. Srinivasa 5. One CC to Sri N. Raja Rajeswara [OPUC] 6. Two CC’s to GP for Education, 7. Three CD Copies. High Court of A.P.[OPUC] ssb IP!" HIGH COURT DATED:19/06/2025 ORDER WP.No.40774 of 2022 3 0 JUN 2025 , ss Co Ssjjurrwrt DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS