Dismissed

Ch.Sujatha v. The Government of A.P.

Telangana HC1 Apr 2010WP/11952/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to regularise petitioner's services as Lecturer in Hindi was dismissed. Court held petitioner failed to satisfy requisite service and working day conditions stipulated under applicable Government Orders, contrary to which no contrary evidence was placed.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus directing regularisation of services in the post of Lecturer dismissed.

Ch.Sujatha Vs The Government of A.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 11952 OF 1999

Between:

Ch.Sujatha

..... PETITIONER

AND

The Govt. of A.P. rep by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶11

....RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶16

WRIT PETITION No. 11952 OF 1999

¶17

O R D E R :

¶18

The petitioner seeks a Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise her services in the post of Lecturer in the Department of Hindi with all consequential benefits.

¶19

It is stated that the petitioner worked as Adhoc Hindi Pradhyapak under the Hindi Teaching Scheme, Vijayawada centre under the control of Human Resources Development of Government of India from 06.01.1993 to 19.08.1993. Thereafter, she was selected as part time Lecturer in Hindi in the 4^th respondent-College and assumed charge on 20.08.1993. Alleging that in spite of her continuous service from 19.08.1993, her services were not regularised, she filed W.P.No.5340 of 1995 and pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, she continued in service on part time basis. While so, by proceedings dated 30.08.1996, ten posts were sanctioned in the 4^th respondent-College, including one post in the Department of Hindi. Contending that the respondents are bound to regularise her services against the said post, the present writ petition is filed.

¶20

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioner did not put in the required service of three academic years as on 30.07.1991 or five academic years as on 25.11.1993 and she did not even put in 360 working days as on 30.07.1991 or 600 working days as on 25.11.1993. Thus, she did not satisfy the conditions stipulated under G.O.Ms.No302, dated 23.08.1991 or G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997 and therefore, her services cannot be regularised.

¶21

The stand taken by the respondents could not be contradicted by the petitioner and no other material could be placed before this Court to show that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of her services. Hence, the Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶22

____________ Date: 01.04.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd

Ch.Sujatha v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Sujatha v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Elec. Engineer, Operation Apepdcl, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Labour

The Mandal Revenue Officer Vs R.Premamma

The Divisional Elect. Engineer, Operation, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Labour

Kalisetty Sreelakshmi Vs Maheshchandra Ladda, IPS

D. Srinivasa Chary Vs Sri S S P Yadav , Ips, Apsrtc.

M.D. Shareef Vs The Regional Manager