APHC010040522012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 38848/2012 Between: 1. B. LATHA, W/O PUNDAREEKAKSHAIAH AGE 44 YEARS, OCC TGT ENGLISH APTWRS (B), SRISAILAM, KURNOOL DIST. 2. A. SUSMITHA JYOSHNA, D/O ANKI REDDY AGE:33 YEARS, OCC: TGT [MATHS], APTWRS (G),THANAKALLU, ANANTHAPUR DIST. 3. D. PADMAJA PANDEY, D/O NAGESWARA RAO AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (B), NAGARJUNA SAGAR, GUNTUR DIST. 4. K. REKHAMANI, D/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGE:46 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (G), GOLLALADODDI, ANANTHAPUR DIST. 5. S.V. SUJATHAMMA, D/O S.V. GOPAL REDDY AGE:37 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (G), KODAVALURU, SPSR NELLORE DIST. 6. V. SRILAKSHMI, D/O SATYANARAYANA REDDY AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: TGT [TELUGU] APTWRS (0), MAHANANDI, KURNOOL DIST. 7. K. SUNITHA, D/O OBAIAH AGE:36 YEARS, OCC: TGT [MATHS], APTWRS (G), MAHANANDI, KURNOOL DIST. 8. P. PRAMEELA, D/O RAJA REDDY AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: TGT [ MATHS] APTWRS (G), VISSANNAPETA, KRISHNA DIST. 9. V. NAGA JYOTHI, D/O VCH SUBBA REDDY, AGE:37 YEARS, TGT [ MATHS], APTWRS (0), SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DIST. 10. B. SRILATHA, D/O RAMI REDDY, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SCIENCE], APTWRS (B), RENIGUNTA, CHITTOOR DIST. 11. K. SIVA NAGAMANI, D/O SATYANARAYANA, AGE:41 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (G), VISSANNAPETA, KRISHNA DIST. 12. A. HEMALATHA DEVI, D/O SATYANARAYANA AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: TGT [TELUGU], APTWRS (G), RAYACHOTI, KADAPA DISTRICT. 13. K. RANGA NAYAKULU, S/O SUBBA RAYUDU, AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: TGT [MATHS] APTWRS (B), RENIGUNTA, CHITTOOR DIST. 14. V. NAGA SRINIVAS, S/O SUBRAMANYA SARNIA AGE:40 YEARS, 2 HN, J W.P.No.38848_2012 OCC: TGT [TELUGU], APTWRS (B), CHITTEDU, SPSR NELLORE DIST. 15. M. RAJASHEKHER REDDY, S/O RANGA REDDY AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: TGT [ENGLISH], APTWRS (B), CHITTEDU, SPSR NELLORE DIST. 16. P. RAJASHEKAR, S/O LAKSHMI NARSAIAH AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: TGT [MATHS], APTWRS (B), CHITTEDU, SPSR NELLORE DIST 17. B. CHENNA KRISHNA, S/O NAGAIAH, AGE:39 YEARS, OCC: TGT [MATHS], APTWRS (B), GOLLALADODDI, ANANTAPUR DIST 18. C. HARIBABU, S/O GOVINDA RAJULU, AGE:36 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (B), RENIGUNTA, CHITTOOR DIST 19. T. RAMMOHAN RAO, S/O RAMULU, AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: TGT [TELUGU], APTWRS (B), JEELUGUMILLI, WG DIST 20. I. NIREEKSHAN RAO, S/O RAMA SWAMY AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: TGT [TELUGU], APTWRS (B), RAMPACHODAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DIST 21. P.S.S.RAM MOORTHY, S/O VENKATA NARAYANA AGE:41 YEARS, OCC: TGT [MATHS], APTWRS (B), RENIGUNTA, CHITTOOR DIST 22. K. ADISHESHA GUPTA, S/O VENKATANARAYANA AGE:37 YEARS, OCC: TGT [MATHS], APTWRS (B), JEELUGUMILLI, WG DIST 23. A. MADHUSUDHANA BABU, S/O MASTANAIAH., AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: TGT [MATHS], APTWRS (B), RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 24. N. SYAM SUDHAKAR, S/O PRABHAKAR RAO AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: TGT [MATHS], APTWRS (B), ADDATEEGALA, EG DIST 25. K. MANOHAR REDDY, S/O NARAYAN REDDY AGE:37 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SCIENCE], APTWRS (B), GOLLALADODDI, ANANTAPUR DIST 26. T. NARAYANA REDDY, S/O VENKATAIAH AGE:36 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SCIENCE], APTWRS (B), SRISAILAM, KURNOOL DIST 27. K. VENKAT REDDY, S/O RAMI REDDY AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SCIENCE], APTWRS (B),BALANAGAR, MAHABUBNAGAR DIST 28. M. PURUSHOTTAM, S/O ASEERVADAM AGE:43 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (B), K.R. PURAM, WG DIST 29. V. SRINIVASU, S/O PARDHASARADHI AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (B), RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DIST 30. N. JAYA RAO, S/O WILLIAM, AGE:39 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (B), K.R. PURAM, WG DIST 31. K. SATHYANARAYANA, S/O GOWRAIAH AGE:36 YEARS, OCC: 3 HN, J W.P.No.38848_2012 TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (B), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST 32. P. RAVINDRAIAH, S/O ALLEIAH AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (G), RAUACHOTI, KADAPA DIST. 33. A. VENKATESWARLU, S/O YELLAMANDAIAH AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (G), BUTTAIGUDEM, WG DIST. 34. K. KARUNAKAR REDDY, S/O VENKAT REDDY AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (B), JEELUGUMILLI, WG DIST. 35. V. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O BHASKARA RAO AGE:39 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (B), KULAKACHERLA, RR DIST 36. Y. NARSI REDDY, S/O MALLA REDDY, AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: TGT [SOCIAL], APTWRS (G), DAMARLACHERLA, NALGONDA DIST. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [T.W.] SOCIAL WELFARE [T.W.SER.III] DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. A P TRIBAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SOCIETY [GURUKULAM], 2ND FLOOR, DSS BHAVAN, MASABTANK, HYDERABAD REP BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY 3. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, A.P. TRIBAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY [GURUKULAM], 2ND FLOOR, DSS BHAVAN, MASABTANK, HYDERABAD REP BY THE CHAIRMAN. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment, though the petitioners have been working from 2001 onwards having selected against sanctioned vacancies through regular selection process conducted as per the recruitment rules in force, vide G.O.Ms. No. 233 Social Welfare [T.W.SER.III] Department dt:15.12.2008 and the consequential Procgs. Rc.No. B1/4617/ 2012 dt:24.4.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside G.O.Ms. No. 233 dt:15.12.2008 and the consequential Procgs. Rc.No. B1/4617/2012 dt:24.4.2012 to the extent of dates of regularization mentioned therein and 4 HN, J W.P.No.38848_2012 direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the their posts from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits thereof IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 49281 OF 2012 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 cases of the petitioners in the ensuing counseling for promotions to the next higher posts on par with 351 candidates who were appointed along with the petitioners between 2001 and 2004 and whose services were regularized vide Procgs. Rc.No. B3/ 4617/07 of the years 2008 and 2009, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K R PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANITHA MESA (SC FOR APREIS TW SW BC) 2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 3. N BHUPAL REDDY 5 HN, J W.P.No.38848_2012 The Court made the following: The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed in the year 2001 by the 1st respondent to work as trained teachers in the 2nd respondent Society. The petitioners underwent a regular selection process and were initially recruited on a contract basis. The 1st respondent issued a notification for the recruitment of about 400 teachers and conducted an examination for selecting eligible candidates. The petitioners were also selected and have been discharging their duties in various schools run by the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that their services were not regularized on par with other teachers, and that the respondents regularized the services of the petitioners only on 24.04.2012. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for regularization from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners were selected to work against existing vacancies, and all the petitioners underwent a regular selection process. It is submitted that some of the selected teachers were regularized on 30.08.2008 by the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.233, dated 15.12.2008. 3. The Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the Board of Governors/2nd Respondent recommended regularization of all contract teachers working against 401 regular posts and 523 sanctioned posts, the respondents, for the reasons better known to them, have regularized the services of only 351 contract teachers, and such regularization 6 HN, J W.P.No.38848_2012 was notified as w.e.f., 30.08.2008. It is submitted that the petitioners were left over from the lot and have approached this Court seeking regularization from the date of their initial appointment. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners were recruited under a regular selection process against existing vacancies and have been working continuously on a contract basis from the date of their initial appointment. The respondents ought to have regularized their services from the date of initial appointment. It is submitted that the respondents have issued several appreciation letters for the efforts of the petitioners, who have rendered satisfactory service and achieved 100% pass results in the Board examinations. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that a detailed counter has been filed and that the respondents considered various factors, including available vacancies, while regularizing the services of the petitioners. The petitioners’ services could be regularized only on 24.04.2012, as the requisite vacancies arose only by that time, and the petitioners were accordingly regularized against those vacancies. It is also submitted that the zone-wise vacancies were required for accommodating the petitioners for regularization, and only after vacancies arose in the respective zones the petitioners be accommodated and regularized. It is further submitted that new posts were sanctioned vide G.O.Ms.No.249 dated 09.11.2011. It is also 7 HN, J W.P.No.38848_2012 submitted that, while considering regularization of teachers, the respondents took into account qualifications, age and date of joining in the 2nd respondent Society as primary criteria. It is also stated that the petitioners did not submit any objection for regarding non-regularization along with other teachers who were regularized w.e.f., 30.08.2008 and that the writ petition was filed only after the service of the petitioners were regularized in the year 2012. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the presidential order would not be applicable to these posts, as the notification itself does not specify vacancies zone-wise. That apart, it is submitted that employees of a Society cannot be considered for applicability of the presidential order, and since no vacancies were specified zone-wise in the notification, the stand of the respondents that the petitioners could be regularized only on 24.04.2012, as and when vacancies arose in the respective zones, does not withstand the scrutiny of law. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Arunkumar Madhavrao Sindddhaye1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the protection under Article 311 is not available to employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Habib Khan Vs State of Uttharakhand and others 2, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court 1 (2007_ 1 Supreme Court Cases 283 2 (2019) 10 Supreme Court Cases 542 8 HN, J W.P.No.38848_2012 held that the period of work-charged service should be reckoned for the purpose of computation qualifying service for the grant of pension. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Dalveer Bhandari and Dr.Mukundakam Sharma, JJ. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Others Vs. Bachan Singh3, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that pension is a reward for long service rendered by an employee and not a bounty. It was further held that past service referred by the employee prior to his regularization should be taken into consideration for determining his service. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 4, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to the rules, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not from the date of his confirmation. 11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners’ past service prior to the date of regularization would have to be considered for notional purposes only, and the said service shall be taken into account for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits at the time of each petitioner attaining the age of superannuation. 3 2009(5) SCC 665 4 (1990)2 SCC 715 9 HN, J W.P.No.38848_2012 12. The stand of the respondents is that though the Board of Governors recommend for regularization of all contract teachers working against 401 regular posts, the respondents could accommodate only 351 contract teachers on the premise that vacancies were not available in the respective zones for regularizing the petitioners’ services on par with others w.e.f., 30.08.2008. When the notification did not demarcate zone-wise vacancies and did not specifically mention zone-wise vacancies or call for applications from the candidates zone-wise, the respondents cannot now contend that the petitioners could be accommodated and regularized only upon the arising of vacancies in the respective zones. Admittedly, the petitioners were required to work in the 2nd respondent Society. It is for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to utilize the services of the petitioners wherever required. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners ought to have been regularized on par with the other 351 similarly selected contract teachers w.e.f., 30.08.2008. 13. It is also made clear that the past service of the petitioners on a contract basis shall be considered for notional purposes and for determining the pension payable to the petitioners. It is further made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to any differential back wages for the said past period. The petitioners’ services shall be regularized w.e.f.30.08.2008, and appropriate entries in their service records shall be made accordingly by treating them as regularized from 30.08.2008. 10 HN, J W.P.No.38848_2012 14. With the above observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 05.05.2026 RMD 11 HN, J W.P.No.38848_2012 87 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 38848/2012 DATED 05.05.2026 RMD