THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NOs.32013 OF 1998 DATE: 17-2-2010 Between: Smt.M.Padmaja …. Petitioner And 1. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad And 3 others … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NOs.32013 OF 1998 ORDER: Heard Sri Y.Venkat Sastry, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for the respondents. This writ petition is filed seeking regularization of the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in the 2nd respondent college. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner passed B.Sc. (Hons) examination in 1989 and completed M.Sc. in Chemistry in 1991. The 2nd respondent invited applications for appointment as part- time lecturers in regular vacancies and, pursuant to the petitioner having submitted her application, she was appointed as a part-time lecturer in the Department of Chemistry in August, 1992. The petitioner claims to have worked continuously with artificial breaks. She also claims to be fully qualified to hold the post of Lecturer in Chemistry and to have been allotted a workload of 20 periods per week both in theory and practicals. Her grievance is that, though she had put in more than six academic years of service as part time Lecturer, her case had not been considered for regularization in accordance with the relevant government orders in force. She would further state that she applied for leave from mid 1998 till October 1998 in view of her advanced pregnancy and that she was granted leave accordingly. She claims to have reported for duty after reopening of the college on 22.9.1998 but was not permitted to join duty, and that she later came to know that the college had engaged the services of others and had designated them as demonstrators. She would contend that respondents 3 and 4 were not eligible to hold the post of lecturer and could not have been appointed to the said post. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents by the Joint Director, Collegiate Education. It is stated therein that the appointment of the petitioner, as a part time lecturer, was contrary to the instructions issued by the Department; her appointment was not even brought to their notice till the present writ petition was filed; the Government, in its memo dated 11.7.1991, had ordered that those part time lecturers working during 1989-90 and 1990-91 should be considered and no fresher should be appointed; the 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated 31.7.1991, had directed the 2nd respondent college not to appoint freshers as part-time lecturers and, if the work load warranted appointment of additional members, they should utilize the services of the concerned lecturers of the college by paying extra remuneration for handling extra classes or by utilizing the services of persons working in nearby colleges. It is further stated that the petitioner was appointed during August, 1992 much against the directions of the Government as well as the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. Reference is made to G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 whereunder certain guidelines were prescribed for regularization of part-time lecturers working in private aided colleges. The said guidelines are as under: “1. Must put in a service of 3 academic years as on 30.7.1991 and 5 academic years as on 25.11.1993 as the case may be and also continuance in service on the date of issue of orders. 2. Must put in 360 working days as on 30.7.1991 and 600 working days as on 25.11.1993 3. There must be an aided vacant post 4. The workload should warrant for filling up of the vacancy 5. The surplus lecturers if any working in the subject should be adjusted and then only the part time lecturers should be considered if there is a vacancy 6. Counting of service shall be based on the certificate issued by the concerned Regional Joint Director of Higher Education and it should also be covered by audit of the concerned period.” It is also stated that the petitioner being a part time lecturer was not eligible for leave; she was entitled to remuneration only for the period of work; the work load of the Department of Chemistry was 189 which only required 9 lecturers; 7 + 2 part time lecturers were working; qualified demonstrators were also eligible to handle the practical and theory classes; the 2nd respondent college had therefore not allowed the petitioner to continue in the college; and the petitioner was not eligible for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 or to continue as part time lecturer in the Department of Chemistry. The petitioner was appointed as a part time lecturer in August, 1992 and could not have put in service of three academic years as on 30.7.1991 or five academic years as on 25.11.1993. She could also not have put in 360 working days as on 30.7.1991 or 600 working days as on 25.11.1993. It is evident, therefore, that the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 for regularization of her services as a part-time lecturer. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________ 17-2-2010 asp