IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 19020 of 2002 Between: S.Sasikala Devi D/o.Deva Sahayam SPW.,Polytechnic College, T.T.Ds., Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 The Devasthanams Education Officer, TTDs., Tirupathi Chittoor District. 3 The Principal, SPW., Polytechnic College, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4 The Commissioner of Technical Education, BRKR Govt. Offices Building, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the Petitioner as Associate Lecturer in Hotel Management and Catering Technology as arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in the cadre of Associate Lecturer in Hotel Management & Catering Technology in the existing vacancy in the 3rd respondent College from the date of her initial appointment in the said post on 6-7-1993, without insisting for ratification by the 4th respondent with all other consequential benefits, monetary and otherwise and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as Associate Lecturer in Hotel Management and Catering Technology as arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in the Management and Catering Technology in the existing vacancy in the 3rd respondent-college from the date of her initial appointment in the said post on 06.07.1993, without insisting for ratification by Respondent No.4 with all other consequential benefits. Brief facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Skilled Assistant on 07.10.1982 on regular basis in Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam. In accordance with the amended Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam service rules, the petitioner was appointed as an Associate Lecturer in Hotel Management and Catering Technology in Respondent No.3 college vide proceedings dated 02.07.1993 in the scale of pay applicable to the said post. The petitioner joined duty as an Associated Lecturer on 06.07.1993 and she was granted three annual increments i.e., on 01.07.1994, 01.07.1995 and 01.07.1996. Respondent No.3-Principal, Sri Padmavathi Women’s Polytechnic College addressed a letter dated 01.08.1997 to the Devastanam Educational Officer, respondent No.2, to clarify as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the annual increments due on 01.07.1997 as her services were not regularized. Pursuant to the said letter, Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 08.10.1997 informed to Respondent No.3 to regulate the petitioner’s pay in the lower post, in which she was initially appointed. On the basis of the said letter addressed by respondent No.2, her annual increments from 01.07.1997 were withheld. However, a representation was made by the petitioner to declare her as approved probationer in the cadre of Associate Lecturer and thereby to release her annual increments. On consideration of the said representation, the Governing Body of respondent No.3 college passed a resolution on 30.12.1998 to declare the petitioner as approved probationer and to release the annual increments in the post of Associate Lecturer. Pursuant thereto, the Devastanam Educational Officer by his D.O letter dated 29.06.2000 requested respondent No.4 i.e., the Commissioner of Technical Education to ratify the said action of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Management in appointing the petitioner as an Associate Lecturer. However, respondent No.4 instead of ratifying the said action taken by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam Management informed to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take a decision on its own accord and declare the probation of the petitioner and release the annual increments due to her. As any decision if taken on its own by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Management, it would be detrimental to the interests of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam as there is no approval by respondent No.4, it again addressed Respondent No.4 to give required approval, but as no such approval has yet been issued, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. The D.O. letters addressed by Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam Management on 29.06.2000 and 10.05.2002 are to the effect that the petitioner was appointed as an Associate Lecturer on recruitment by transfer with effect from 06.07.1993 onwards and the said action initiated by the Management requires ratification in order to realize the increments and also for declaration of probation of the petitioner in the said cadre. When such an action is taken up by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam Management in accordance with the rules, it is not known as to why respondent No.4 has an objection in not approving the said ratification. Now, as the said D.O letters addressed by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam Management i.e., Respondent No. 1 to 3 are very much with respondent No.4, respondent No.4 has to consider the said D.O letters and pass necessary orders. Therefore, respondent No.4 is hereby directed to consider the D.O letters of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and pass necessary orders with regard to the ratification of the action initiated by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam Management in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. The said action shall be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of Six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J July 21, 2009 KSH