IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.19679 of 2001 Between: V.Anuradha D/o V.B.Venugopal R/o Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Higher Education Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 3 The Sarojini Naidu Vanitha Maha Vidyalaya Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent,Hyderabad. .....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 a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that petitioner is entitled to be regularised as Lecturer in English at least w.e.f. 25-11-93 and not regularising the services of the petitioner in terms of the relevant G.Os. as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Arts, 14, 16 21, and 39 (D) of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare that she is entitled to be regularized as Lecturer in English with effect from 25.11.1993 in Sarojini Naidu Vanitha Maha Vidyalaya at Hyderabad, 3rd respondent herein. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she passed M.A. (English) and was appointed as a part-time lecturer in English in the 3rd respondent-college on 04.08.1989. Though she is in continuous and uninterrupted service and she is entitled for regularization of her services, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997, her case was not considered for regularization of her services. Therefore, she approached this Court and filed this Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. 4. The Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1st respondent herein, had issued G.O.Ms.No.328 on 15.10.1997 wherein it is stated as under: “Only those who have put in a service of three academic years as on 30.7.1991 or five academic years as on 25.11.1993 as the case may be and also continuing in service on the date of issue of these orders, are eligible for regularization. As 120 days are considered to be reasonable number of working days for an academic year, the PTL/PTJLs should have put in 360 working days as on 30.7.1991 and 600 working days as on 23.11.1993. The service put up by the PTL/PTJL in more than one private aided college with or without breaks may be taken into account. Counting of service shall be based on the certificate issued by the concerned RJD((HR) and counter signed by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education /Commissioner & Director of Intermediate Education, as the case may be. Such certificate shall be issued by the RJD(HR) based on the certificates issued by the Correspondent of the respective college and counter-signed by the Principal of the Private College along with the certificate of audit for the concerned period.” 5. While interpreting the aforesaid G.O., a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 13.11.2001 in W.P.No.5304 of 1998 observed as follows: “a writ of Mandamus shall issue to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to count (1) 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 Edn., 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.” The said judgment was challenged and a Division Bench of this Court, while disposing off the Writ Appeal No.2038 of 2001 by judgment dated 22.07.2008, observed as follows: “We see no reason to interfere either with the findings of the learned Judge or with his conclusions in granting the relief to the first respondent-petitioner except to the limited extent that the respondents were to regularize the services of the first respondent-petitioner. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified and, accordingly, the appellants shall consider the case of the first respondent-petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 and in accordance with the observations made in the order under appeal. In so far as the order of the learned Judge directing the appellants to pay arrears of salary from the date the second respondent-Management sent proposals is concerned, we modify the order holding that, in case the first respondent- petitioner is regularized in service, she shall be entitled to arrears of salary from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge.” From the above judgments, it is clear as to how the period of 600 days has to be calculated. 6. The Honorary Secretary-cum-Correspondent of the 3rd respondent- college sent proposals, vide his letter dated 29.4.2006, stating that the petitioner had put in a service of 601 days, to the Director of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad, who in turn, vide letter dated 09.05.2006, directed the Secretary-cum-Correspondent of the 3rd respondent-college to furnish the details and pursuant thereto, the Secretary-cum-Correspondent furnished the details on 16.05.2006. From the above, it appears that the petitioner had put in a service of more than 600 days as on 25.11.1993 and she is entitled to the benefits provided for under G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997. 7. Now, as the Secretary-cum-Correspondent of the 3rd respondent- college has already addressed the Director of Collegiate Education and as the matter is pending before the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, 2nd respondent herein, the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner, keeping in mind the judgments of this Court as stated supra, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 22nd July, 2009 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No. 19679 of 2001 (Disposed of-NC) 22nd July, 2009 CBS