B. Giridhar Reddy vs State Of Telangana,

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners as Hostel Welfare Officers Grade – II, as per the policy of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM.I) Department dated 26.02.2016, even though the services of similarly placed persons were regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 19.12.2016, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Hostel Welfare Officers Grade II as per the regularization policy of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 26.02.2016, if necessary by granting relaxation in favour of the petitioners.

The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that pursuant to the Recruitment Notification vide RC.No.TW1/628/2010 dated 01.07.2010 issued by the District Collector, Nalgonda, the petitioners herein were appointed as Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II, on contract basis vide Proc.Rc.No.TW1/628/2010 dated 20.08.2010. Initially, the petitioners were appointed as Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II for the Academic Year 2010-11 and later, their contract period was extended for the Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has issued termination orders vide Circular Rc.No.TW1/339/2013 dated 24.04.2013 terminating the contract services of the petitioner on the ground that regular Hostel Welfare Officers have been allotted to the District, in spite of the availability of the vacancies.

Challenging the order of termination, the petitioners have filed O.A.Nos.3826 of 2014, 3642 of 2014, 4013 of 2014 and 3905 of 2014. The Tribunal passed interim orders in the said O.As on 28.06.2014, 11.06.2014, 03.07.2014 and 07.06.2014 respectively directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Hostel Welfare Officers in the existing available vacancies as was done in respect of similarly placed persons by extending the ratio laid down by this Court in W.P.No.24918 of 2011 dated 05.07.2013. Thereafter, respondent No.2 implemented the orders of the Tribunal and vide Memo dated 28.08.2014 re-engaged the petitioners as Hostel Welfare Officers in the existing vacancies.

It is further stated that the Government of Telangana has issued G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 26.02.2016 for adoption of the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1944 (for short, Act 2 of 1994) to the State of Telangana. Pursuant to the above policy, the Head of the Department instructed the Project Officers, DD (TW) and DTWO’s of the Telangana State to furnish the information relating to Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-I and Grade-II working on contract basis vide Memo dated 11.04.2016. Accordingly, the petitioners have furnished their information to the District Authority, who in turn, has forwarded the same to the respondent No.2. While doing so, in the remarks column, it was stated that the services of the petitioners were removed vide Circular dated 24.04.2013 and reinstated as per the Court directions. The petitioners were informed that their cases will not be considered as they were not working as on 02.06.2014, which is a condition stipulated in the above G.O.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed O.A.No.1660 of 2016 seeking a direction from the Tribunal to consider their cases for regularization of their services on par with others without insisting a condition that they should be continued as on 02.06.2014. The said O.A. was admitted on 27.04.2016 and pending before the Tribunal. It is stated that the petitioners have also given a representation to the respondents to consider their cases while forwarding the check list particulars along with most urgent Memo dated 11.04.2016, but, so far no action has been taken thereon.

It is further stated that the respondents have issued the orders of regularization of services of contract Hostel Welfare Officers vide G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 19.12.2016. Though the services of the similarly situated persons were regularized, the cases of the petitioners were not considered, as they were disengaged as on the cutoff date. While so, respondent No.2 once again sought for the vacancy position of Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II for the purpose of direct recruitment vide Letter Rc.No.TW1/197/2017 dated 10.04.2017. The grievance of the petitioners is that if the said vacancies are filled up, their services will not be regularized.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioners were engaged and worked as Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II on contract basis w.e.f. 21.08.2010 in the hostels of Nalgonda District i.e., before formation of Telangana State and continued up to 24.04.2013. It is further stated that only due to administrative reasons, the petitioners were given break w.e.f. 25.04.2013 to 27.08.2014. It is further stated that pursuant to the interim orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.3826 of 2014, 3642 of 2014, 4013 of 2014, 3905 of 2014 and 3966 of 2014, respondent No.2 has issued the Memo dated 28.08.2014 re-engaging the petitioners as Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II.

It is contended that proposals have already been submitted to respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, who, in turn, has forwarded the same to the Government. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Telangana issued a Memo vide No.4227/TW.Ser.II/2016, dated 30.01.2017 clearly stating that the cases of the petitioners could not be considered as they were not working as on 02.06.2014, as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 26.02.2016.

Heard Sri K. Asad Ahmed, the learned counsel representing Sri P. Amarender, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services V and Services I. Perused the record.

A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners were appointed as Hostel Welfare Officers Grade II for the Academic Year 2010-11, on contract basis. Subsequently, their contract period was extended for the Academic Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has issued the Circular dated 24.04.2013 terminating the contract services of the petitioner on the ground that regular Hostel Welfare Officers have been allotted to the District, in spite of the availability of the vacancies. However, pursuant to the interim orders dated 28.06.2014, 11.06.2014, 03.07.2014 and 07.06.2014 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.3826 of 2014, 3642 of 2014, 4013 of 2014 and 3905 of 2014 respectively, respondent No.2 vide Memo dated 28.08.2014 re-engaged the petitioners as Hostel Welfare Officers in the existing vacancies and the petitioners are working as such as on the date of filing the present writ petition. The said interim orders were passed by the Tribunal by following the ratio laid down by this Court in W.P.No.24916 of 2011 dated 05.07.2013.

The operative portion of the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24916 of 2011 reads as under:

“The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare is absolutely right in pointing out that three vacancies of Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II, lying in East Godavari District, have been notified amongst others for regular recruitment to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), which has since finalized the selections. Now, the selected candidates have to be issued orders of posting.

The selected candidates, where should be posed is an exclusive prerogative lying with the domain of the State and the administrators of the human resources belonging to the State.

But however, if there are still vacancies of Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II left in the East Godavari District, the claims of the petitioners may be considered for continuance against one vacancy or the other, taking into account the fact that they are already engaged on contractual basis and they have been running the services for the past few months.

It is made clear that the posting orders to the directly recruited candidates selected by the APPSC cannot be withheld or stopped under any circumstances, inasmuch as they have a right to ask for the posting orders.”

Thereafter, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 26.02.2016 for regularization of services of the persons appointed on contract basis, subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:

“1. Availability of a post in the relevant category in the respective departments shall be the pre-requisite condition for considerign regularisation.

Regularization may be cosnidered only in respect of persons appointed on full time contract basis on a monthly remuneration.

Regularization may be considered only in respect of eligible personnel working as on 2nd June, 2014, immediately before formation of Telangana State, and continuing till the date of proposed regularization.

For the purpose of continuity the annual breaks in certain vacation departments like Education and Welfare Departments may be ignored. This condonation shall not, however, apply in respect of breaks on account of unauthorised absence and disciplinary cases.

The regularization shall be with prospective effect, i.e., from the date of issue of Orders of regularization and appointment to the category.

The backlog in reservations if any arising out of regularization as above shall be Carried forward and treated as backlog vacancies for that particular category".

From the above G.O., it is clear that for regularization of the contract employees, the post should be available in the relevant category, the person should be appointed on full time contract basis on a monthly remuneration and the person should be working as on 02.06.2014.

Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioners have been appointed as Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II, on contract basis in regular vacancies on 20.08.2010, and they fulfill all the conditions except continuation of service as on 02.06.2014. Though the services of the petitioners were terminated on 24.04.2013, they were re-engaged vide Memo dated 28.08.2014. Furthermore, in the counter affidavit, the respondents have specifically stated that the services of the petitioners were terminated only due to administrative reasons.

It is apt to refer to Clause (4) of G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 26.02.2016, which reads as under:

“4. For the purpose of continuity the annual breaks in certain vacation departments like Education and Welfare Departments may be ignored. This condonation shall not, however, apply in respect of breaks on account of unauthorised absence and disciplinary cases.”

Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioners are working as Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-II from 20.08.2010 continuously except for the period from 24.04.2013 to 28.08.2014. As pointed out supra, the services of the petitioners were terminated on 24.04.2013 purportedly on administrative grounds. However, the respondents have not given any clarification/justification for such removal.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met, if the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners’ for regularization and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.