Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 400 (AP)

Kommu Babu v. Board of Trustees, R. R. D.

2022-04-13

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2022
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “to declare the notification Roc. No. E10/15204/2010 dated 18.1.2011 of Respondent No. 2 as illegal and quash the impugned notification and consequently to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ order or direction directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Programme Assistants in dharma Prachara Parishad of T.T. Devasthanam on the basis of their appointments under proceedings No. DP1/189/DPP/2004, dated 20.6.2005 and pass such other order or orders......” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners No. 1 to 3 are working as Programme Assistants in Hindu Dharma Prachara Parishad, a separate Unit of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam and they were appointed in the year 2005. It is submitted that the Executive Officer, TTD notified on 2.2.2005 for filling up of 25 posts of Programme Assistants in Dharma Prachara Parishad, Tirupati on Contract basis. They were eligible to be appointed for the said post as per the interviews were conducted on 15, 16 and 17th May 2005. The petitioners were selected and appointed on the basis of the marks obtained by them. It is further submitted that the Executive Officer has issued proceedings vide Roc. No. DP1/189/DP/2004, dated 3.5.2005 appointing the petitioners No. 1 to 3 and the appointment order stated that the appointment was for a period of 11 months. It is further submitted that the respondents have issued Notification No. 21, dated 2010-2011 bearing Roc. No. E10/15204/2010, dated 18.01.2011 calling for applications for 6 posts of Programme Assistants to be appointed on regular basis. The qualifications prescribed in the notification were same as was published in the year 2005. The petitioners are deprived of their livelihood by the illegal action of the respondents, which is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petitioners came to know that the respondents are taking steps to issue another notification also for the rest of 25 posts of Programme Assistants throwing out the present 26 incumbents who are not working. Most of the petitioners are over 35 years and they will not be eligible to get appointments elsewhere. It is further submitted that the petitioners came to know that the respondents are taking steps to issue another notification also for the rest of 25 posts of Programme Assistants throwing out the present 26 incumbents who are not working. Most of the petitioners are over 35 years and they will not be eligible to get appointments elsewhere. The petitioners are already holding the reserved posts of SC and ST category and there is no reason for the respondents to fill up SC and ST posts from 2005 and fully qualified as per G.O.Ms. No. 107 Revenue (Endts.I) Dept. dated 3.2.1993. Therefore, prayed to set aside the notification in Roc.No. E10/15204/2010, dated 18.01.2011 of the respondent No. 2, declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary and also directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Programme Assistants in Dharma Prachara Parishad of T.T. Devasthanam on the basis of their appointments under proceedings dated 20.06.2005. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit came to be filed by the respondents denying all the averments made in the petition and contended that the petitioners have no legal or vested right to claim for any appointment and cannot question the subject notification. Further, the petitioners are working on contract basis also filed affidavit stating that they would not claim regularization of services/job security. Admittedly the TTD Board resolution No. 285, dated 23.09.2004 approved the proposals to fill up certain categories of posts in DPP on contract basis. It is further submitted that the qualifications of petitioners and extension of continuing the petitioners from time to time till date are undisputed. Hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri K.K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri A. Sumanth, learned Standing Counsel for TTD appearing for the respondents. 5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, when the petitioners were appointed after following necessary selection process for appointment of regular employee in the existing vacancies, they are entitled to claim absorption into services in terms of principle laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , decided on April 10, 2006 and requested to direct the respondents to regularize/absorb the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment. 6. 6. On hearing, this Court is observed that the petitioners have been employed in the respondent organization since long time more than one and half decade and they have reached nearly 50 years of age and the prospects of getting alternative employment have reduced because of age, unless regularization of their services on par with others. 7. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L. Kesari and Others, 2010 (9) SCC 247 wherein it was clarified Umadevi's case as held in Para-5 are as follows: “5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ‘regularization’ enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts. But had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iii) Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision.” 8. The above ratio affirmed in a recent decision of University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union and Another, 2021 Law Suit (SC) 228. 9. In view of the above case and the above cited ratios, though the petitioners have completed 16 years of service, no steps were taken by the respondents till date for regularizing the services of the petitioners. 9. In view of the above case and the above cited ratios, though the petitioners have completed 16 years of service, no steps were taken by the respondents till date for regularizing the services of the petitioners. Admittedly no notifications were issued to the subject posts in compliance to the Hon'ble Apex court ratio decided in Umadevi's case (supra). 10. Upon considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and on perusing the material available on record, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the writ petition with the following direction: (i) The notification in Roc. No. E10/15204/2010, dated 18.01.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed. (ii) Consequently, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners on the basis of their appointments vide proceedings No. DP1/189/DPP/2004, dated 20.06.2005. 11. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.