Disposed

Ms Farzana Begum v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Nov 2011WP/8885/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding regularization of services for a part-time lecturer, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the Government of A.P. to pass appropriate orders on the Commissioner's report submitted on 25.10.2008 within two months, without finding fault with the scheme annulment.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Government of Andhra Pradesh to pass appropriate orders on the letter dated 25.10.2008 within two months.

Ms Farzana Begum Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.8885 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ms.Farzana Begum … Petitioner And

¶8

The Government of A.P., Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education (C>E.-II), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶11

W.P. No.8885 of 2011

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st respondent in not passing any orders on the report dated 25.10.2008 of the

¶14

2^nd respondent by considering the case of the petitioner for regularization of services, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of the well settled principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she got appointed as part time lecturer in the 3^rd respondent’s college, Mumtaz Degree and P.G. College, on 22.09.1988 and she has been teaching the Botany subject in both media i.e. English and Urdu.

¶16

Even though the 3^rd respondent recommended her name for regularization, there was no response from the authorities. Therefore, she made a representation dated 21.06.2008 requesting the authorities to regularize her services, pursuant to which,

¶17

the 2^nd respondent, Commissioner of Collegiate Education, vide his memo dated 05.08.2008 has called for remarks from the

¶18

3^rd respondent and the 3^rd respondent, in turn, vide letter dated 30.08.2008 sent the remarks of the petitioner to the

¶19

2^nd respondent. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent vide his letter dated 25.10.2008 submitted his report to the 1^st respondent, Government of

¶20

A.P., but the 1^st respondent did not consider her case for regularization and pass any orders. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that non consideration of the case of the petitioner by the 1^st respondent and not passing any orders on the letter dated 25.10.2008, addressed by the 2^nd respondent, is illegal and arbitrary.

¶22

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that as on today there is no scheme for regularization and the same is very clear from the letter dated 25.10.2008, addressed by the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st respondent. Therefore, the case of the petitioner has not been considered.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶24

The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner has been working in the 3^rd respondent’s college for the last 20 years and she is drawing Rs.6,400/- per month on consolidated basis.

¶25

The only grievance of the petitioner is that though she has been working for the last so many years in the 3^rd respondent’s college, her services are not regularized. Therefore, she made a representation to the authorities requesting her services to be regularised. Based on which, the 2^nd respondent called for remarks from the 3^rd respondent and on receiving the same,

¶26

the 2^nd respondent vide his letter dated 25.10.2008 addressed a letter to the 1^st respondent, which reads as under:

¶27

“With reference to the Govt. memo cited,

¶28

I wish to state that Miss Farzana Begum has been appointed as Part time Lecturer in Botany on 22.09.1988 on consolidated pay. She passed M.S.c in first class and completed 20 years of service. He selection has not been made through the proper selection Committee. Her case will not fall into the ambit of any mode of appointment. The Correspondent has stated that there is a gap period of one year i.e. from 04.03.1991 to 23.04.1991. Now, she is drawing Rs.6,400/- per month on consolidated basis. Out of 4 sanctioned posts in Botany subject, two Lecturers are working and two posts are vacant in the College.

¶29

In this connection, I wish to state that in order to examine the request of the Correspondent, the procedure as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.328, Edn., dated 15.10.1997 has to be adopted. As on today, there is no scheme for regularization of services of Part time Lecturers and the scheme of regularization of eligible part time Lecturers as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.328 Edn., Dated 15.10.1997 has already annulled by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.283, dated 03.11.1999.

¶30

This is submitted for favour of kind information and suitable orders of the Govt.”

¶31

From a perusal of the record and according to the submissions of the learned counsel, after addressing the said letter by the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st respondent, the 1^st respondent did not pass any orders and the same is pending with the 1^st respondent. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the said letter.

¶32

Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side,

¶33

the 1^st respondent, Government of Andhra Pradesh, representing its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, on the letter dated 25.10.2008, addressed by the

¶34

2^nd respondent, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶37

Date: 03.11.2011 LSK

Ms Farzana Begum v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Farzana Begum v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Patnala Kumar Vs The Vizianagaram Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.

K. Shyam Kumar, Vs The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager

Gadipe Surya Chandra Bhaskara Tarzan, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

B. Ramulu Hyderabad Vs the M.D A.P. State Co-Op Rural Irrign Corp. Ltd. and 2 Othrs

T. Vijaya Babu, Vs The Railway Protection Force

MD Arif Pasha, Vs The Business Manager