IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12111 of 2009 Between: Smt.K.Radhika Reddy W/o. K.Chenna Reddy,Hindu Sarojini Naidu Vanitha Maha Vidyalaya Hyderabad, H.No.2-2- 1105/13, Tilak Nagar,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P rep.by its Secretary Education Department,Secretariat Hyderabad 2 Director of Collegiate Education Andhra Pradesh, Nampally,Hyderabad 3 Sarojini Naidu Maha Vidyalaya Exhibition Grounds Nampally,Hyderabad rep.by its Correspondent Principal .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declarant a) the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner for absorption into aided vacancy of Lecturer in Department of Commerce in 3rd respondent college ie Sarojini Naidu Vanitha Maha Vidyalaya, Nampally Hyderabad on the alleged ground that the petitioner has fallen short by few for competing 600 days as 25-11-1993 while the petitioner having actually completed 600 days as on 25-11-1993 if Casual Leaves, Maternity Leaves Investigation Duties Curfew Days and Family planning operation leave applied by the petitioner between 7-9-1989 and 25-11-1993 are taken into account as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of Constitution of India b) that the petitioner is entitled for absorption as Lecturer into aided vacancy in Commerce Department of 3rd respondent College by Calculating the Casual Leaves, Maternity Leaves Invigilation Duties Family Planning and Curfew Days in terms of the Judgment in W.P No.5304/1998 dt 13-11- 2001 as confirmed in W.A No.2038/2001 dt 22-7-2008 of this Hon'ble Court also as she has completed 19 years of service and is eligible and entitled for regularization of the service C) direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and absorb her into one aided vancancy of Lecturer in Department of Commerce in 3rd respondent college and to grant such other relief. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.12111 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein was appointed in the 3rd respondent College as Part-time Lecturer in the Department of Commerce in the year 1989. As per G.O.Ms.No.328, Education (CE-III) Department, date 15.10.1997, the Part-time Lecturers who have put in 600 days of service on 25.11.1993 are entitled for regularization of their services. According to the petitioner, she has completed more than 600 days by 25.11.1993. However, the Director of Higher Education held that the petitioner did not put in 600 working days as required under G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997 on the ground that the petitioner had availed maternity leave apart from certain casual leaves and medical leaves. Similar objection was taken in respect of one Smt. T.M. Bhramarambika, who was also working as Part-time Lecturer in the 3rd respondent College. Aggrieved by the same, Smt. T.M. Bhramarambika filed W.P.No.5304 of 1998. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 13.11.2001 holding as under : “In the light of the foregoing discussions, a writ of mandamus shall issue to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to count (i) the maternity leave availed by the petitioner; (ii) the special leave for undergoing the tubectomy operation; (iii) the days on which the petitioner was on invigilation work; (iv) and the days that were declared as holidays at the time of communal riots and demolition of Babri Maszid and the casual leaves availed by her, as the period spent on duty while computing 600 man days as required under G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997 for consideration of the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services and pass orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that the petitioner is entitled to receive the arrears of the salary from the date on which the 3rd respondent- management sent proposals to the official respondents for regularizing the services of the petitioner. The official respondents are given eight more weeks to release the arrears in grant-in-aid.” As against the said judgment, though the State preferred W.A.No.204 of 2001, the Division Bench did not interfere with the above said directions, but only modified the order to the extent that in case the writ petitioner is regularized in service she shall be entitled arrears of salary from the date of order in the writ petition. Pursuant thereto, the services of Smt. T.M. Bhramarambika were regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.214, dated 21.3.2009. The petitioner states that similar benefit was granted to one Smt. G.Y. Bhargavi and Smt. V. Rajitha and their services were regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.933, dated 15.12.2001 and G.O.Rt.No.889, dated 31.10.2005 respectively. It is contended by the petitioner that since she is also similarly situated, the respondents ought to have regularized her services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997. Having regard to the order of this Court in W.P.No.5304 of 1998 holding that the period during which the maternity leave was availed and the invigilation duties were performed as well as curfew days cannot be taken into account to make calculation of 600 days specified in G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997 for regularization of the services of Part-time Lecturers, the petitioner made a representation on 10.6.2009 requesting the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad, to regularize her services on par with other similarly situated Part-time Lecturers Smt. T.M. Bhramarambika, Smt. G.V. Bhargavi and Smt. V. Rajitha and keeping in view the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5304 of 1998. The said representation was received in the office of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad on 10.6.2009 itself. Since there was no response, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for absorption into aided vacancy of Lecturer in the Department of Commerce in the 3rd respondent College as arbitrary and illegal. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that W.P.No.19679 of 2001 filed by another Part-time Lecturer working in the 3rd respondent College by name Smt. V. Anuradha was also disposed of by this Court by order dated 22.7.2009 with a direction to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to consider the case of the petitioner therein keeping in view the judgments of this Court. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the fact that the petitioner herein is also similarly situated is not disputed. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.6.2009 in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5304 of 1998 as modified by the Division Bench in W.A.No.204 of 2001 and also taking into consideration the orders of regularization passed in favour of similarly situated persons and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 20.08.2009 gbs