IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WA.NoS.870, 871, 873 AND 874 OF 2001 WRIT APPEAL NO : 870 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/01/2001 in WP NO : 2717 OF 1988 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Secretary to Govt., Education Dept., Govt. of A.P. Secretariat Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 A.Chandresekhar Reddy Tirupathi, Chittor District 2 M.Sreeramula Reddy Tirupathi, Chittor District 3 K.Gajendran Tirupathi, Chittoor District 4 G.Manohar Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District 5 E.Sainath Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District 6 N.Shanmugam Tirupathi, Chittoor District 7 V.Chandrasekhar Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District 8 A.Sankar Tirupathi, Chittoor District 9 P.M.Siva Kumar Tirupathi, Chittoor District 10 A.Mohan Tirupathi, Chittoor District 11 N.Sreenivasulu Tirupathi, Chittoor District 12 Kasi Babu Tirupathi, Chittoor District 13 A.Balakrishna Tirupathi, Chittoor District 14 Smt. S.Meharan Bee Tirupathi, Chittoor District 15 G.Dayalakshmi Tirupathi, Chittoor District 16 B.Garatamma Tirupathi, Chittoor District 17 V.Uma Devi Tirupathi, Chittoor District 18 D.Vasantha Kumar Tirupathi, Chittoor District 19 K.Sarojamma Tirupathi, Chittoor District 20 N.Dhanamma Tirupathi, Chittoor District 21 M.Chiranjeevi Tirupathi, Chittoor District 22 Sri Venkateswara University The Registrar Tirupathi, Chittoor District 23 Principal and Warden SVUC Hostels for men, Tirupathi, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA WRIT APPEAL NO : 871 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/01/2001 in WP NO : 25627 OF 1997 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Secretary, Education Department Govt, of AP Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND 1 S.Kesava Chary Triupathi, Chittor District 2 T.Garataiah Triupathi, Chittoor District 3 T.Muralikrishna Triupathi, Chittoor District 4 B.Munirajulu Triupathi, Chittoor District 5 V.Eswaraiah Triupathi, Chittoor District 6 S.Sabjan Triupathi, Chittoor District 7 J.Ramachandraiah Triupathi, Chittoor District 8 G.Viswanadha Reddy Triupathi, Chittoor District 9 M.Muikrishnaiah Triupathi, Chittoor District 10 M.Radhakrishnaiah Triupathi, Chittoor District 11 C.Siddamma Triupathi, Chittoor District 12 J.Nagaiah Triupathi, Chittoor District 13 A.Paramasivam Triupathi, Chittoor District 14 B.Venkataramana Triupathi, Chittoor District 15 R.Harivardhana Triupathi, Chittoor District 16 S.Ramaswami Reddy Triupathi, Chittoor District 17 E.Ramamurthy Triupathi, Chittoor District 18 P.Chalapathi Triupathi, Chittoor District 19 B.Govindaiah Triupathi, Chittoor District 20 K.Penchalaiah Triupathi, Chittoor District 21 B.Padmavathamma Triupathi, Chittoor District 22 K.Siddeswara Rao Triupathi, Chittoor District 23 B.Krishna Murthy Triupathi, Chittoor District 24 B.Ramachandra Triupathi, Chittoor District 25 A.Shakaraiah Triupathi, Chittoor District 26 G.Munikrishnaiah Triupathi, Chittoor District 27 Registrar, Sri Venkatewara University, Triupati, Chittoor Dist 28 Sri Venkateswara University, Triupathi, Chittoor Dist Principal and Warden, Arts and Science College, Hostel, .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 873 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/01/2001 in WP NO : 26406 OF 1997 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Secretary, Eduction Dept Govt. of A.P Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND 1 N.Rajasekhar Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District 2 E.Chandra Tirupathi, Chittoor District 3 K.Reddeppa Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District 4 N.Kesavulu Tirupathi, Chittioor Dist 5 S.Pulla reddy Tirupathi, Chittor District 6 G.Vijayaprabhakar Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 7 B.Sesha Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 8 K.Malathi Tirputahi, Chittoor Dist 9 The Registrar, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 10 Principal and Warden Arts and Science College Hostel, Sri Venkateswara University Tirupathi, .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.H.DHARMAJAYA WRIT APPEAL NO : 874 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/01/2001 in WP NO : 25598 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Secretary , Education Dept, Govt of A.P. Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND 1 K.Varaha Narasimhulu Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 2 B.Seshaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District 3 S.Narayana Tirupathi, Chittoor District 4 B.Chinnayya Tirupathi, Chittoor District 5 K.P.Dommaraswamy Tirupathi, Chittoor District 6 M.Jayaramaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District 7 T.Chinnabbai Tirupathi, Chittoor District 8 C.Chandramma Tirupathi, Chittoor District 9 S.Madhavaraju Tirupathi, Chittoor District 10 K.Damodaram Tirupathi, Chittoor District 11 K.Ramesh Tirupathi, Chittoor District 12 C.Nagaraju Tirupathi, Chittoor District 13 S.Venkataramana Tirupathi, Chittoor District 14 P.Subrahmanay Raju Tirupathi, Chittoor District 15 P.Muneiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District 16 M.Bakkaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District 17 K.Manohar Tirupathi, Chittoor District 18 P.Brahmananda Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District 19 Registrar, Sri, Venkatewara University Tirupathi, Chittoor District 20 Principal and Warden , Arts and Science College Hostel, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.H.DHARMAJAYA The Division Bench of this Court made the following common judgment: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANTHAN * * * WRIT APPEAL Nos. 870, 871, 873 AND 874 OF 2001. COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T. Meena Kumari ) All these batch of writ appeals are filed against the common order of the learned single Judge in WP.No.25598 of 1997, WP.No. 25627 of 1997, WP.No. 26404 of 1997, WP.No.2717 of 1998 and WP.No.3391 of 1998, dated 18-1-2001 whereby the learned single Judge allowed all the writ petitions except the petition of the respondents-petitioners 6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 in WP.No.3391 of 1998 who were appointed after 25-11-1993 directing the appellant-respondents not to terminate their services for the sake of termination, if there is need for continuance of their services and that apart as and when vacancies arise in regular sanctioned posts, their cases shall be considered for regularization. In spite of the above directions, if the authorities concerned terminate the services of the respondents-petitioners, they shall have a preferential claim over freshers as and when appointments are made and without absorbing the respondents-petitioners, no freshers shall be appointed. 2. The facts of these writ appeals are that the respondents in these appeals were appointed in hostels that are being maintained by the University in various capacities such as servers, sweepers, helpers, watchmen, rice cleaners, Asst. Electricians, Assistant Gas Mechanic, Store Attenders, Assistant Steward, Matrons, Games Boy, Cleaners and Gardeners from 1982 and they were working on daily wage basis for all these years. The first petitioner in WP.No.25598 of 1997 was appointed as Junior Assistant on 20-11-1985. Except the petitioners 6, 19, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 in WP.No.3391 of 1998, the other petitioners 94 in number were appointed prior to 25- 11-1993. As these petitioners were appointed after cut off date in temporary appointment i.e., after 25-11-1993 under section 3 of Act 2 of 1994, the learned single Judge did not give any relief to them in this case. WP.No.3391 of 1998 in so far as the petitioners 6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20; namely, A. Venkatamani, K. Manikantan, T.Venkatesh, T.Srinivasulu, S. Munikrishna, S.Rajul Reddy, G.Ramachandraiah, A. Umapathi and P. Balaji respectively is dismissed. The case of the petitioners in the above writ petitions is that the University was appointing them for 89 days at a time and after giving one day break they are being re-appointed since 1982 onwards. It is also their case that though they are working for more than a decade, the respondents have not shown any inclination to regularize their services and pay the time scales. After issuance of GO.Ms.No.212, dated 22-4-1994 wherein the scheme was framed to regularize the services of the temporary employees, the Government seemed to have called for the particulars of the employees, whose cases will fall under the above GO and the University seemed to have sent proposals in their Lr.No.1729-UE-1-1/94-95 dated 20-11-1995. But the Government in its letter dated 22-11-1995 rejected the request of the University on the ground that those petitioners are being paid from the hostel funds and they cannot be brought into the University services as per the scheme envisaged in GO.Ms.No.212. Questioning the said letter, some of the employees filed WP.Nio.26054 of 1995 and this Court by order dated 13-8-1997 held that when it is admitted that the hostels are established and maintained by the University, the University cannot refuse to treat the employees working in the hostels as employees of the University and accordingly the letter of the Government dated 22-11-1995 was set aside and a direction was given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services and to pay them regular time scales of pay in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana V/s. PR Singh [1]., forthwith and the respondents were given four weeks of time to comply with the orders. The University instead of regularizing the services of the temporary employees tried to fill up as many as 190 existing vacancies by issuing a notification. In those circumstances, while the petitioners in WP.No.26054 of 1995 filed CC.No.830 of 1998 and other temporary employees filed the above writ petitions on various dates and obtained interim orders for their continuance. While admitting the contempt case by order dated 13-7- 1998, the learned single Judge directed the Registrar of the S.V. University as well as the Principal Secretary to the Government, Higher Education to appear in the Court. The Registrar of S.V.University having appearing in the court on 10-8-1998 submitted that he sent proposals to the Government on 14-10-1997 and the same is pending with the Government. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Principal Secretary to the Government, Higher Education, it is stated that the proposal of the University was examined in consultation with the Finance and planning Department as its concurrence is necessary and the Finance and Planning Department informed them that in the absence of clear vacancies it is not possible to consider the proposal of the Registrar of the said University. Finance and Planning Department further stated that regular scales of pay attached to the posts are contingent upon regularization and as such payment of regular pay at the level of minimum scale is also not possible. In those circumstances, the proposal was rejected by the Government in its Lr.No. 1729/VE-I/1/95, dated 27-7-1998. During pendency of the writ petition, the respondent University in its advertisement E.1 (3) 1999, dated 6-4-1999 invited applications for appointment of the following posts: 1. Server at Cuddapah (1) 2. Cleaners at Cuddapah (2) 3. Cleaners at Tirupati (12) 4. Rice Cleaners at Tirupati (2) By order dated d23-4-1999 in the said contempt case, the University was restrained from filling up any of the vacancies as notified in the said advertisement. The University filed its counter in the batch of writ petitions on 11-8-1999. The case of the University is that whatever may be the nomenclature of the posts, they have to be made by the Vice- Chancellor and in this case the Chief Warden or Warden of the hostels un-authorisedly and without sanction and permission of the University administration appointed these petitioners on consolidated pay and as they were appointed by incompetent authority, they are not entitled to the relief of regularization of their services. It is also their case that way back on 6-8-1981, the State Government had issued instructions to the University not to make any appointments without prior approval of the State Government and the said directions were communicated to the Wardens of the Hostels in the University Campus as well as the Special Officers in charge of the Hostels in Post Graduate Centers in University by letter dated 16-9-1982 with the following guidelines: 1) Not to make any fresh appointments even on contingent basis. The earlier instructions were reiterated in its letter dated 24-6-1995 and the Chief Warden as well as the Wardens appointed these individuals in various hostels from time to time contrary to the prohibitory directions. 2) Under Section 49 of the AP University Act without prior approval of the State Government no new posts can be created. All these petitioners are being paid from the amounts collected from the boarders without liability on the part of the University. 3) To fill up the sanctioned and budgetary posts in various cadres, selection committee must be constituted to consider the applications and to make recommendations to the appointing authority, who in turn is expected to make the appointment by following the rule of reservation. 4. The learned Govt.Pleader for Finance and Planning contended that the common order impugned in all these writ appeals directing the Government to give approval for creation of new posts to regularize the services of the respondents-petitioners with all attendant benefits is erroneous and contrary to law. Further the learned single Judge erred in holding that the appellant is estopped from contending that the appointments of the respondents are irregular and they cannot seek the relief of regularization of their services are unsustainable. It is the further contention of the learned Government Pleader that the finding of the learned single Judge that the order of the Government dated 27-7-1998 rejecting the proposal sent by the Registrar of S.V.University suffers from the vice of non- application of mind and arbitrary. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents in all these writ appeals contended that the learned single Judge has observed in the common order that if the respondents-petitioners are really appointed without the knowledge and consent of the appointing authority, nothing prevented the authorities to direct the termination of the services of the respondents-petitioners and also to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the erring officers of the University in making these appointments in violation of the instructions given by the University in its letter dated 16-9-1982. These appointments were made only to circumvent the instructions given by the State Government but at the same it should be kept in mind that these appointments were made in exigency of administration but not other wise. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned single Judge dealt the matters in extenso and gave cogent reasons for his conclusion and there are no grounds to interfere with the common order passed by the learned single Judge and consequently all the writ appeals are liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in all the writ appeals. 7. We have gone through the common order impugned in these writ appeals. The learned single Judge observed in the common order that the Registrar, S.V.University to send proposal for regularization of the services of the respondents-petitioners from 25-11-1993 in case they have completed five years of service as on 25-11-1993 and in case of others as and when they complete five years of service without insisting for existence of clear vacancies as stipulated in clause 5 of the G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-4-1994 but subject to fulfillment of other conditions therein without four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Further the learned single Judge made it clear that while sending proposals, the rule of reservation to be followed in fixing the interse seniority among them. If required number of candidates from reserved categories are not available to be fitted in the roaster those posts may be carried forward and the backlog posts have to be filled in the next recruitment. The learned single Judge directed the Government to give approval for creation of new posts to regularize the services of all respondents- petitioners duly keeping in mind the findings recorded in the said writ petition as well as in WP.No.7175 of 1997 and batch dated 8-12-2000 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of proposals from the Registrar, S.V. University. Further on regularization of their services, the respondents-petitioners are entitled to count their services for the purpose of seniority and other attendant benefits like terminal and pensionary benefits, which are being given to the regular employees of the University. As far as monetary benefit is concerned, keeping the critical financial position of the State in mind, the same is limited from 01-1-2001 in the time scales of pay attached to the posts in which the respondents-petitioners are working. Further the learned single Judge observed that the appellant is given twelve weeks of time to pay the differences in wages i.e., after deducting the pay the petitioners are receiving as on today from the pay they have to receive from 01-1- 2001 after they are fitted in the regular time scales of pay attached to the posts in which they are working. 8. The learned single Judge has observed that as and when vacancies arise in regular sanctioned posts, their cases shall be considered for regularization. It is also observed in the order of the learned single Judge that if the authorities concerned terminate the services of the respondents herein, they shall have a preferential claim over freshers as and when appointments are made and without absorbing the respondents, no freshers shall be appointed. The learned single Judge has clearly observed that as far as the respondents in whose favour the relief of relaxation was refused only on the ground that they were appointed after 25-11-1993, it is made clear that the appellant herein shall not terminate their services for the sake of termination, if there is need for continuance of their services. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances and keeping in view of the services rendered by the respondents for more than two decades and that apart after going through the detailed observations of the learned single Judge in the common order dated 18-1-2001 passed in WP.Nos.25598/97, 25627/97, 26404/97, 2717/98 and 3391/98, we are of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the common order passed by the learned single Judge and all these writ appeals are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. 10. The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ------------------------------------- JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ----------------------------------------------- JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. 14-7-2008. I s L ........REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER. To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA { } [1] ) AIR 1992 SC-2130