Dismissed

Smt. N. Geetha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Dec 2024WP/6217/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A former contract Botany Lecturer, acquitted in 2016 of examination malpractice charges after her 2012 disengagement, sought reinstatement. Her rejection memo went unchallenged for nearly seven years. The Court held the delay was unexplained and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay alone.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. N. Geetha Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{PULLA KARTHIK}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6217 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. N. Geetha, W/o. Vishnu, Aged. 34^{years,Occ. Ex. ContactJr. Lecturer} (Botany), ln Govt Jr. College, Yellareddy, No. 6-1-5412,^NewAbadi Yellareddy, Yellareddy^{lr,4andal, Kamareddy District,Telangrnr...rar,r,O"a*}

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep by^{its Principal Secretary, Departmenl of Higher} Education, Dr.BR. Ambedkar Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner, Board of^{tntermediate Education (TSBIE)' State of} Telangana, Nampally, HYderabad.

¶12

The R"egional Joint Direcior, Director^{of lntermediateEducation,Warangal} District, Warangal, Telangana.

¶13

The Principal, Government Junior College,^{Yeilareddy, KamareddyDistrict.}

¶14

,..RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of ihe^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or Direction^{more particularlyone in the} nature of Writ of N,4andamus, to^{declarethe rejectionproceedingsof 2nd} respondents in Memo No. Ser.ll-^{2t724312O16dated 24.1O.2O',1 7 in rejecting the} representation of the^petitioner to^{appoint/permil the petitioner as Botany Lecturer} on contract basis in the 4th^{respondent's Junior college as illegal, arbitrary,} against the G.O.Rt No. 3 dated^{21 .06.2014and against all settledprinciplesof law} and consequently direct the^{respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner} for appointment of Botany Lecturer^{on contract basis without referringto G.O.Rt.} No. 3 dated 21 .06.2O14.

¶16

IANO:1OF2 024

¶17

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment of Botany Lecturer on contract basis without referring to G.o.Rt. No. 3 dated 21 .06.2014, pending disposal of the main Writ petition_

¶18

Counsel for the^petitioner: SRI E.MADAM MOHAN RAO, SENTOR COUNSEL . FOR SRI AKKAM ESHWAR uounset tor the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES I

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.6217 of 2024

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 ot the Constitution of India, is

¶24

filed seeking the following reliet

¶25

"--.to issue appropridte Wit, Order or Direction more particularlg one in the nafi)re of Wit of Mandamus, to declare the rejection proceedings of 7d respondenls in Memo No. Ser.II-2/ 7243/2016 dated 24.10.2017 in rejecting the representation of the petiti.oner to appoint/ peruit tle petitioner as Botang Lecturer on contract bosis in the 4h respondent's Junior College as illegat, arbitrary, qgainst the G.O.Rt-No. 3 dated 21.06.2014 and against all settled pinciples of lau and consequeatlAb direct the respondents to reconsid.er the cose of the petittoner for appointment of Botang Lechtrer on contract bctsis without refering to G.O.RI. No. 3 dqted 21.06.2014 and to pass..."

¶26

Heard Sri E. Madam Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appea-ring on behalf of the respondents.

¶27

L.a..r"t"rrior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Botany I-ecturer on contract basis in respondent No.4 College, and discharged her duties from 07 .O7 .2006 Lo 28.02.2OO7 , O1.08.2007 to 19.03.2O08, 02.06.2008 to 25.O3.2OO9, 20.06.2009 to 23.O3.2OIO, 01.06.2010 to 23.03.2011 and 01.06.2011 to 06.03.2072, which is evident from the service certificate issued by respondent No.4. While so, the petitioner was not permitted to continue her services as

PK, J W P.No.6217 of 2024

¶32

Lecturer on the ground that a criminal case was registereI against the petitioner vide Crime No.23 of 2Ol2 on the hle of the Yellareddy Police Station, Kamareddy District, for the aileged offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 (ztl, (b) and 8 of the Prohibition of Malprao.ice in Public Examination Ac.t, 1997. However, without initiating alrl, disciptinary proceedings, her services were discontinued. Thereafter, the said criminal case rvas ended in acquitta.l vide judgment dated 07.06.2016 in C.C.No. 153 of 2Ol2 passed try the Judicial I Class Magistrate at Yellaredd-r..

¶33

lt is further submitted that foilowing her acquittal in the criminal case, the petitiorrer submitted A detailed representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 16.07.2016, duly enclosing a copy of the juclgment dated 07.06.2016 in C.C.No. 153 of 2012, and requested to permit/re instate her to continue her services as Botany Lecturer on contract basis. However, no action u'as taken lhereon. ff,.."fo.", the petitioner was conslrained to file W.P.No.39O00 <';f 2016, wherein, this Court was pleased to direct respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the pelitioner dated , 16.07.2016 and pass appropriate orders within a period of for.Lr weeks, vide order dated i 1.11.2016 in W.P.M.P.No.48059 of 2016. In cornpliance with the aforementioned order, respondent No.2 passed the^prescnt impugned order dated 24.10.2077, rejecting the case of the petitioner stating that according to Clarrse (a) of G.O.Rt.No.3 dated 27.06.2074, the petitioner was

¶34

¶35

¶36

PK, J W.P.No.6217 of 2O24

¶37

not working as on^{28.03.2014.However,this reasoningof the respondents} shows that they^{overlookedthe fact that the petitioner was not permitted to} discharge her duties as^{Lecturer in Botany, and also disregardedthe fact} that no disciplinary^{proceedings were initiatednor she wassuspended or} terminated from service.

¶38

5.ItisfurtherSubmittedthatthepetitionerdiligentlydischargedher duties from 2006 to 2Ol2^{withoutany remarksor memos issued against} her, and that the criminal^{case registeredagainstthe petitioner also} concluded with her acquittal.^{As such,the petitioneris deemed to have} been conlinued in service^{as of the dateof G.o.Rt.No.3 dated 21.06.2014.} Therefore, the respondents^{ought to have passed orders in favourof the} petitioner, and taken her into^{serviceon contractualbasis' However, the} action of the respondents^{inrejecting herrepresentationfor} appointment/reinstatement^{into service as l,ecturerin Botany is illegal and} arbitrary, a-rrd therefore,^{it is prayedto set aside the impugned order'}

¶39

Per contta,learned Government^{P]eaderfor Services-ISubmitted that} the petitioner, while^{working as lecturerin Botany, wasdisengagedfrom} services oo 07.o3.2O12^{on accountof registration of a criminalcaseagainst} her vide Crime No.23/2 oI2,^{for the offencesorrnishable underSections3, 4} (a), (b) and 8 of the^{prohibitionor vra p#tr"esin pubric ExaminarionsAct,} lgg7. Subsequently, the^{petitioner submittedrepresentations dated}

¶40

¶41

PK, J W.P.No.6217 of 2024

¶42

16.O7.2O16 ulnd 28.OT.2076, stating that the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellareddy, vide order dated 07.06.2016 in C.C. No .lS3 of 2OI2, had acquitted her of the criminal charges, and therefore, she requested her re-engagcment of service on contract basis.

¶43

[t is further submitted that the Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.3 dated 21.06.2014, accorded permission for renewal of Contract faculty working in Government Jtrnior coreges from 04.06.2o 14, subject to cerrain conditions, including the aLctual requirements based on the admission s. According to the said instructions, the contract of the faculty w-ho worked t t the rast working day of the previous academic year, shan be renewed every academic year with the permission of the Government, subject to achieved prescribed benchmarks, performance and discipline. However, the petitioner failed to meet the prescribed benchmarks. Further, the petitioner does not have eL vested right for a guaralteed re-engagement as a Contract faculty member. Therefore, respondent No.2 is justified rn passing the present impugned orders. It is further submitted that the services of the petitioner were not renewed aJter the academic year 2012-73. Hence, it is deemed that the petitioner was disengaged from the services. Therefore, the question. of issuing a notice or conducting al enquiry against her does not arise. It is further submitted that the impugned rejection order was passed on 24.7o.2or7 b,ut the petitioner filed the present writ petition in 2024. As

¶44

¶45

PK, J w.P.No.6217 of 2O24

¶46

¶47

¶48

such, there are no merits in^{the presentwrit petition, and therefore,it is} prayed to dismiss the same

¶49

8 This Court has taken note of the^{rival submissions made by learned} counsel for the respective^parties.

¶50

g. A perusal of the^{recorddisclosesthat the petitioner workedas} Lecturer in Botany on^{contractbasisfrom 2006 to 2Ol2 and herservices} were subsequently disengaged^{in the year 2Ol2due to the registration of a} No.23/2012, for the^offences criminal case against^{her vide Crime} (b) and 8 of the Prohibition^{of Ma'l} punishable under Sections 3,4^(a), Practices in Public^{ExaminationsAct,} 7997. However, the^{said criminal} case ended in acquittal^{of the petitionervide judgmentdated07 '06'2016 in} C.C.No.153 of 2O12^{passedby the Judicial First Class Magistrate at} Yellareddy. Therefore,^{the petitionerapproachedthe respondentsfor re-} engagement ald pursualt^{to the order of this Court dated 1111'2016in} W.P.No.390OO of 2016,^{tJlerespondents have passed the present impugned} order dated 24.10.2017^{rejecting the case of the petitioner'}

¶51

¶52

io Before delving into the^{merits of the case, it is pertinentto notethat} petitioner for^re- the impugned order,^{rejecting the request} of thea Despite being aware,^the promptly, instead hied^the ,":,,,1J.1;,;," :j:;,- ""::* present writ petition in 2024,^i.e ,^{after a lapse of a-lmost seven years'for}

¶53

¶54

¶55

PK, J V' P.No.6217 of 2024

¶56

which delay, no cogent reasons are assigned. Thus, it clearly shows that the petitioner vras reructant to cha enge the rejection orrler in a timely manner.

¶57

As regards; delay in approaching this Court, a Division Bench of this Court, vide judp;ment dated 13.12.202 1 in Writ Appeal Nos. 166O of 2O18 and 593 of 2016, has categorically held the delay of 5 to 1g years in preferring a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, as inordinate delay.

¶58

11 ln the present case, since there is a,, inordinate delay of almost seven years on the parl- of thc petitioner, for which, no vaiid or cogen t reasons are assigned, this ctrurt is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. As such, the prerient writ petition is liable to be dismissed on .he ground of delay alone.

¶59