IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY. THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRAT^ WRIT PETITION NO: 30233 OF 2018 • ■- 4 \ jj / '4 tel Between: 1. Bijjarapu Venkata Isaiah, S/o. Late B. Venkataiah, aged about 78 years, Occ. Nil, Residents of H.No. 43/129, ECM Compound, N.R. Peta, Kurnool Town and District. 2. B. Christopher Emmanuel, S/o. B. V. Isaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Private Employee, Residents of H.No. 43/129, ECM Compound. N.R. Peta, Kurnool Town and District. 3. B. Vijaya Kumar, S/o. B.V. Isaiah, aged about 43 years, Occ. Private Employee, Residents of H.No, 43/129, ECM Compound. N.R. Peta, Kurnool Town and District. 4. B. Jaya Rathnamaiah, S/o. B.V. Isaiah, aged about 40 years, Occ. Private Employee, Residents of H.No. 43/129, ECM Compound, N.R. Peta, Kurnool Town and District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The District Eudcational Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4. Emily Coles Memorial High School for Girls, Kurnool Town and District, Rep. by its Headmistress. ...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 writ of Mandamus, to declare the letter of the third respondent in Rc. No. 1402/B8/2009 dated 03.07.2013, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Sri Sevadas Vidyamandir High School and others (S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9541 of 2007) and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the post of Smt. Mankindi Ratnamma, who is the wife of the first petitioner herein, as a regular employee from the date when she has completed 5 years of service i.e., with effect from 25.11.1993 as per the orders issued in G.O. Ms. 212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994 and to pay all Consequential benefits to the petitioners till date. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents, to consider the case of Smt. Manikindi Ratnamma, who is the wife of the first petitioner herein, for regularization of her post from the date when she has completed 5 years of service i.e., with effect from 25.11.1993 as per the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4; -— The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010632922018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 30233/2018 Between: Bijjarapu Venkata Isaiah and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.M SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “...to issue a Writ Order or direction particularlyone In the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the letter of the third respondent in Rc No 1402/BB/2009 dated 03.07.2013 as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the Judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others \/s Sri SevadasVidyamandir High School and others (S.L.P Civil No. 9541 of 2007) and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the post of SmtMankindiRatnamma who is the wife of the first petitioner herein regular employee from the date when she has completed 5 years of service i.e., with effect from 25.11.1993 as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.212 Finance and Planning Department dated 22.04.1994 and to pay all Consequential benefits to the petitioners till date and pass. as a ^. 2 Heard Sri M.Srikanth, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned 2. Assistant Government Pleader for School Education. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the wife of 1 3. petitioner i.e., Smt. M. Rathnamma, initially appointed as part-time sweeper in the School of the respondent No.4, on 01.11.1982. Thereafter, she has become full time contingent sweeper, on 01.11.1986 and worked as such till her superannuation, on 30.06.2010. Due to death of Smt. B.Devamma, who died due to paralysis on 21.02.1993 and her post has fallen vacant and Smt. M. Rathnamma, who is the wife of the petitioner is eligible to be absorbed in the said vacancy. Learned Counsel would further submit that the respondent No.4 has sent a proposal on 27.02.1999 to the respondent No.2 to take necessary action for regularization of her services in the light of G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 22.04.1994 from the date of completion of five (5) years of service with effect from 25.11.1993. Learned Counsel would further submit that the respondent No.3 also addressed a letter on 29.09.1993 to the respondent No.2 for conversion of post of sweeper to Class-1V post.Learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that thereafter the respondent No.4 has sent another proposal dated 27.02.1999 seeking regularization of services of Smt.M.Rathnamma, since she was possessing prescribed qualification. But there was no response from the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 has sent specific proposal to the respondent No.3 on 20.05.2008 by giving all details regarding the extents of clear vacancy and that Smt.M.Rathnamma is eligible on all accounts and she was working in 3 • r sanctioned post even prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.no. 524 dated 20.12.1988. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the appointment of Smt.M.Rathnamma as Sweeper was done prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.524, the question of rule of reservation does not Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.4 has sent another proposal on 01.07.2008 to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 but there is no response. Learned counsel would further submit that the wife of the petitioner No.1, retired on 30.06.2010 and died on 30.07.2013 but she is entitled to the scale of pay pension attached to the post of Class-IV. Learned Counsel finally submits that the petitioners when they have obtained the information under RTI about status of theirrepresentation, they could understand that the respondent No.3 addressed a letter to the Joint Director of School Education stating that there was no scope to examine the proposal of regularization of Smt. M.Rathnamma since she has attained the age of superannuation by that time. Learned Counsel finally submits that simply because the individual died, the respondent authorities cannot throw away her claim. Such being the the claim of the persons seeking regularization like Smt. M. Rathnamma can be kept in cold storage for decades together and then come up with a plea that the individual died or retired. Learned counsel would further submit that the deceased employee is very much entitled for regularization of her services and petitioners being the husband and children of the deceased employee, they are entitled to get the pension and other benefits. arise. case Learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education would submit that due to retirement and subsequent death of the individual, the respondent No.3 opined that there is no need to scrutinize the application of the individual. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the respondent No.4appointed Smt.M.Rathnamma as sweeper without following the rule of reservation. Learned Assistant Government Pleader finally prays for dismissal of the petition stating that the relief has become infructuous. 4. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, there is no dispute about the fact that the wife of the 1®‘ petitioner, Smt. M.Rathnamma has joined in the School of the respondent No.4 in the year 1982, as part time sweeper and then she has become full time contingent sweeper in 1986. The record further shows the efforts made by the respondent No.4 for regularization of the services of the deceased employee i.e. Smt. M. Rathnamma. It is undisputed fact that she worked in a sanctioned post. The post is also fallen vacant due to the death of one Smt. Devamma. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the respondent No.4 has not followed the procedure in appointing Smt. M. Rathnamma as sweeper falls to the ground since G.O.Ms.No. 524 Education Department dated 20.12.1988 has come into force on 20.12.1988 whereas, the appointment of the deceased Smt.M.Rathnamma was way back in the year 1982. That being so, the respondent authorities cannot take shelter to reject the proposal of the regularization on the point that rule of reservation is not followed in the year 1982. View from any angle, the deceased 5 Smt.M.Rathnamma is entitled for regularization of her services in the sanctioned post as Class-IV employee. She has worked from 1982 to 2010 till her retirement in the very same school contributing her services as full time contingent sweeper. The Correspondent of the respondent No.4 has issued proceedings dated 01.11.1986 pertaining to late M. Rathnamma duly stating that she is eligible for pay and allowance as and when admitted to grant-in- aid. The school of the respondent No.4 is a minority Christian institution. The appointments whatever made earlier to G.O.Ms.No.524 cannot be questioned on the point that rule of reservation was not followed. The deceased Smt.M.Rathnamma is entitled for regularization of her services rendered during her lifetime and despite of several proposals made by the respondent No.4, the respondent authorities have not responded to the proposals, even though she is entitled for regularization. Determination by the Court: The Hon’ble Apex Court, while discussing the judgment of Umadevi’s case, in State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L.Kesari and others\ held as 6. follows: “4. When the matter came up for hearing on 10.3.2006, the matter was adjourned to await the decision of the Constitution Bench in CA Nos. 3595- 3612/1999 - State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. However, subsequently notice was directed to be issued both on the application for condonation of delay for 361 days' in filing the SLP as also on the special leave petition. 5. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1). In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the (2010) 9 see 247 6 appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, In terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 6. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below: "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 ten 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 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 regularize 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 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 dally wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date " 7. 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: (I) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more In duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality 7 should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years, (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum gualificatlons, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and ivas working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. or 8. Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered 10.4.2006)." or on 7. In the case of Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar and others^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at Paras 11, 12, 14, & 16as follows; “11. As noticed earlier, the case of the appellant was referred to Three Members Committee and Three Members Committee rejected the claim of the appellant declaring that his appointment is not in consonance with the ratio of the decision laid down by this Court in Umadevi's case (supra).In Umadevi's case, even though this Court has held that the appointments made against temporary or ad-hoc are not to be regularized, in para 53 of the judgment, it provided that irregular appointment of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned posts who have worked for 10 years or more can be considered on merits and steps to be taken one time measure to regularize them. In para 53, the Court observed as unden- "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan 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 (2015) 8 see 265 8 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 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." The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was prohibiting regularization of such appointments, appointed persons whose appointments is irregular but not Illegal, ensure security of employment of those persons who served the State Government and their Instrumentalities for more than ten years. 12. Elaborating upon the principles laid down in Umadevi's case (supra) and explaining the difference between irregular and illegal appointments in State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L Kesari & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 247, this Court held as under: "7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularisation" enunciated in Umadevi (3) , if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post 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, (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and u/as working against sanctioned posts, undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular." but had been selected without 9 14. In our view, the exception carved out in para 53 of Umadevi is applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no material placed on record by the respondents that the appellant has been lacking any qualification or bear any blemish record during his employment for two decades. It is pertinent to note that services of similarly situated persons on daily wages for regularization viz. one Yatindra Kumar Mishra who was appointed on daily wages on the post of Clerk was regularized w.e.f 1987. The appellant although initially working against unsanctioned post, the appellant was working continuously since 03.1.2002 against sanctioned post. Since there is no material placed on record regarding the details whether any other night guard n/as appointed against the sanctioned post, in the facts and circumstances of the inclined to award monetary benefits be paid from 01.01.2010. 16. The impugned order of the High Court in LPA No. 1312 of 2012 dated 20.02.2013 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The authorities are directed to notionally regularize the services of the appellant retrospectively w.e.f 03.01.2002, or the date on which the post became vacant whichever is later and without monetary benefit for the above period. However, the appellant shall be entitled to monetary benefits from 01.01.2010. The period from 03.01.2002 shall be taken for continuity of service and pensionary benefits. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Niha! Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others^ at Paras 19, 21 and 24 held as under; over case, we are 8. “19. Coming to the judgment of the division bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in LPA No. 209 of 1992 where the claims for regularization of the similarly situated persons were rejected on the ground that no regular cadre or sanctioned posts are available for regularization of their services, the High Court may be factually right in recording that there is no regularly constituted cadre and sanctioned posts against which recruitments of persons like the appellants herein were made. However, that does not conclusively decide the issue on hand. The creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State. That tlfe^State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship only demonstrates the arbitrary nature of the exercise of the power available under section 17 of the Act. The appointments made have never been terminated thereby enabling various banks to utilize the services of employees of the State for a long period on nominal wages and without making available any other service benefits which are available to the other employees of the State, who discharging functions similar to the functions that are being discharged by the appellants. are ^(2013) 14 see 65 10 21. But we do not see any justification for the State to take a defence that after permitting the utilisation of the services of large number of people like the appellants for decades to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants. Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need. 24. Even going by the principles laid down in Umadevi’s case, we are of the opinion that the State of Punjab cannot be heard to say that the appellants are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on permanent basis as their appointments were purely temporary and not against any sanctioned posts created by the State. ” In a recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors^, it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period, in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below: 9. 6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion M/as based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular"’ and “illegal’’ appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..." ” (2024) 1 SCR 1230 11 ■>* . In Jaggo vs. Union of India & others®, the Hon’ble Apex Court held 10. 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 on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and 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 and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits. ” 11. In the backdrop of legal positions referred supra, the deceased Smt.M.Rathnamma is entitled for regularization. Such being the case, she cannot be deprived of such right having contributed her services for 28 years in the School of the respondent No.4 with fond hope that one or other day, her services would be regularized. Hence the petitioner No.1 who is the husband of Smt. M. Rathnamma is entitled for retiral and family pension according to the rules. ^ 2024 INSC 1034 12 12. With these observations, the Writ Petition iIS allowed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K J RAJA SABO ASSISTANT RBG?STF<AR ,w To, SECTION OFFICER lbrahimSm°\^ayawa°da®KXhL®DScf'^““''°"'^"^^ 4.' tI" Kurnool, Kprnool District. Town and DistrfcT’Rep.'by^te®® High School 5. One CC to Sri M Srikanth 6. Two CCs to GP [OUT] OunturDisWc^''®" . Secretariat, for Girls, Kurnool , Advocate [OPUCJ for School Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 7. Three CD Copies TF .>* , HIGH COURT DATED:10/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.30233 of 2018 I 11 SEP m ' -itA' Current Section ■ £^SPATCV^^^ ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS