Dismissed

Smt.Dr.v.Aruna v. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by the Principal Secretary to

Telangana HC14 Mar 2007WP/7895/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding regularization, the court held that a petitioner's initial appointment being illegal and lacking a transparent recruitment process renders her ineligible for regularization under the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi, making State administrative orders unconstitutional and unenforceable.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought by the petitioner (regularization/absorption) is dismissed as the administrative orders are unconstitutional.

Smt.Dr.v.Aruna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 7895 of 1997

¶3

DATED: 14-03-2007

¶4

Between: Dr. V.Aruna …Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Educational Department, Hyderabad and others.

¶5

…Respondents.

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶7

W.P.No. 7895 of 1997

¶8

ORAL ORDER:

¶9

Without a due and transparent process, the petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Lecturer in Zoology in 1985-86 in the Osmania University Science College; subsequently she served at Sardar Patel College at Secunderabad during 1986 to 1988; at B.T.Navabharat Junior College, Malakpet, Hyderabad during 1989 to 1990 and 1990 to 1991 and thereafter as a Part Time Lecturer in Zoology in an Aided post in the 4^th respondent College in what is claimed was a substantive vacancy in an Aided post in the 4^th respondent Aided College, in 1991. She has been continually in service since then. The petitioner claims regularization/absorption into service as Lecturer in Zoology in terms of certain administrative orders issued by the State including in G.O.Ms.No.302, dated 23-8-1991 and G.O.Ms.No.362, dated 7-10-1994 which have created an administrative regime of regularization of illegally appointed Lecturers.

¶10

In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme

¶11

Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadev i^[1] which has restated the law in respect of the claims for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance of ad hoc, casual and daily wage employees, the petitioner’s initial appointment being illegal and not preceded by a transparent process of recruitment is in transgression of the constitutional injunctions of equality and of public law limitations on appointment to public offices and the statutory rules governing

¶12

recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Aided Degree Colleges. For this reason, in view of the mandate in Umadevi, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted, notwithstanding the administrative orders of the State in this behalf, which are unconstitutional and unenforceable, in view of the law declared in Umadevi.

¶13

For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, after hearing the learned Government Pleader for Education also. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

_______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶15

14-03-2007 GRR

¶16

[1] (2006) 4 SCC 1

Smt.Dr.v.Aruna v. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Dr.v.Aruna v. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Papineni Chakrapani Vs The District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada

Saahil Trading Company, repbyits Proprietor Sri Vs The Collector, Visakhapatnam District

M/s.Shivani Traders, rep. by its Proprietor Vs The District Collector ( Civil Supplies)

R.Nageswar Rao Vs Chairman Sri Visakha Grammena Bank

Dr.B.Rajagopala Sarma, Vs Director of Collegiate Education

K. Shilpa, Vs Municipal Corporationof Hyderabd