The State of Telangana, Vs a. Dhana Murthy

¶1

t³⁴⁸⁸¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAT{A AT HYOEFABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDOIN

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 5 OF 2026

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Against Order Dated 171OG12025 in WP No 3878 of 2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Commissioner of Collegiate Education Education, State of Telangana, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education,Warangal, Warangal District.

¶12

The Principal, Government Degree College, Chandur, Nalgonda Districl

¶13

...APPELLANTS

¶14

ANO

¶15

A. Dhana Murthy, S/o A.Ashaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Contract Lecturer in Political Science, Govemment Degree College, Chandur, Nalgonda District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF Z)26

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in WP No 3878 of 2023 dated 17-06-2025 by the Learned Single Judge, during the pendency of the appeal.

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO, . GP FOR SERVICES I

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.LAXMAIAH, rep., . SRt V.BRAHI'iA|AH CHOWDARY

¶21

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

IIT TIIE HIGH COTIRT rlOR THE STATE OF TEIAT{C}AT{A AT IIYDERABAT)

¶23

TIIE HONELE THE CHIEF JIISIICE SRI APARESiH KT'MAR SINGH AT{D

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHITIDDIN

¶25

WRIT APPEAL No.S of 2O26

¶26

DATE: OA.OL.2O26

¶27

BETtrIEEN:

¶28

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary and 3 others

.Appellants

AND

A.Dhana Murthy.

....Respondent

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government

¶35

Pleader for Services-l appearing for the appellants and Sri l(.Laxmaiah, learned counsel representing Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

¶36

The present writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the final order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3878 of 2023, whereby the writ petition {iled by the respondent herein was disposed of with a direction to the second appellant to reconsider the respondent's request for re-engagement as a Contract Lecturer in Political Science,

¶37

-)

¶38

)..

¶39

against anrr existing va-cancy either in the fourth appellant,s colrege or In any nearby institution at Suryapet. strictl,v in accordarrc. ,*ith law.

¶40

3' The factuar matrix of the case is that the respondent was appointed as a contract Lecturer in politiceil Science in 2ool pursuant tc a due selection process. and his engagement was periodically renewed tilr 31-03.2017. The appe,ants did not renern, his contract for trre academic year 2o]T-rg, citing irregurar attendance between 2L.ro.2or6 and 2o.o2.2ol1 and his non_ availability in April 2oLZ, allegedry causing academic disruption. The respondent, however, asserts that his absence was due to serious illness supported by medical certificates, and that though he reported for duty on 25.04 .2or7, he was not permitted to resume duties.

¶41

4' Aggrieved by the non-renewar, the respondent submitted representations seeking re-engagement. pursuant to directions issued by this Court in W.p. No. 1g1S of 2019, his representation dated o3.o3.2o18 was considered and rejected by the commissioner of collegiate Education (2na appellant) by order dated rg.o4.2org. challenging the said rejection, the respondent filed w.p. No. 3g7g of 2023, wherein, by interim order dated ro.o2.2o23, the learned singre Judge directed the appeflants to consider his case for re_engagement against any existing vacancy in or around suryapet, withou-t

¶42

(^r

¶43

3

¶44

reference to the earlier rejection, keeping in^{view his long senrice and} absence of adverse record.

¶45

In compliance, the 2"d appellant passed a speaking^{order dated} 14.06.2023 reiterating the grounds of alleged^{absence and non-} availability of vacancies, and again rejected^{the respondent's request.} The learned Single Judge, finding the order to^{be mechanical and} passed without due consideration of the respondent's^{long and} unblemished service, disposed of the writ^{petition by issuing the} directions now under challenge in the^{presentappeal.}

¶46

The learned Government Pleader raised the^following contentions:

¶47

l. That the impugned order is contrary to^{the Government} Memos dated 08.12.2O16 and 17.O1.2O18,^{whichcategorically} stipulate that proposals for re-engagement of^disengaged contract lecturers, particutarly after a^{considerablelapse of} time and post-bifurcation (re-organisation^{of the State of A.P.)} are not to be entertained.

¶48

That the direction issued by the learned Single^{Judge travels} beyond the scope of the relief sought in the writ^{petition,which} was confined to re-engagement of the respondent^{only in the} 4th appellant's college.

¶49

111 That the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate^{that the} respondent was irregular in attending duties^{during the} relevant period and that, in any event; no contract^lecturer vacancies were available for re-engagement. \ \

¶50

:i4::

¶51

iv' That the engagement of contract recturers is governed by the procedure prescribed under G.o.Ms.N o.r42, dated 0g.10.2000, and the impugned direction overlooks the mandatory nature of the said procedure.

¶52

v' That the direction to consider the respondent against vacancies of^oGuest Facult5/ is legally impermissible, as the posts of contract Lecturer and Guest Facurt5r are distinct, governed by different norms, and are not interchangeable.

¶53

7' Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order of the learned Singre Judge and contended that the order of the rearned single Judge was a werl reasoned order r'vhich did not warrant any interference by this court.

¶54

8' we have taken note of the respective co,tentions urged and the material on record.

¶55

Analysis and finding

¶56

9' It is pertinent to note that the rearned single Judge proceeded on the premise that the respondent,s 16 years of service created a right, or at least a legitimate expectation, of re-engagement. This approach is legally untenable. The engagement of a contract Lecturer is' by its very nature, temporary, contractuar, and coterminus with the academic session, conferring no right to renewal or continuity. The Honble supreme court in secre t ry, state of

¶57

(

¶58

..(..

¶59

Kclntattalka a. tlmodeulr,^{has held that contractual or temporary} service d.oes not ripen^{into an enforceable right. Reliance on length of} service to override the explicit^{terms of engagement is therefore} contrary to settled law.

¶60

1(). It is to be noted that the^{Doctrine of LegitimateExpectation} cannot be invoked to compel^{a pubtic authority to act contrary to its} policy or governing norms. The^{Government Memos dated} O8.L2.2O16 and 17.01.2018^{expresslyprohibitre-engagementof} disengaged contract^{lecturers after a prolonged gap, particularly in} the post-bifurcation context.^{These policy decisions, taken in} administrative interest,^{bind the appellants and were not accorded} due weight by the learned^{Single Judge.}

¶61

Judicial review under^{Article 226 is confined to examiningthe} legality of the decision-making^{processand not the merits of the} decision itself. The^{reasons for non-renewal and unauthorized} absence and its adverse^{impact on academicfunctioning fall squarely} within the realm of administrative^{and academic discretion.By} characterizing the speaking^{order dated 14.06.2023 as "mechanical,"} the learned Single Judge^{effectively re-appreciated facts and} substituted his own assessment^{for that of the competentauthority,} which is impermissible,^{as held in Tata cellular a. (Inion of Indtoz.}

¶62

l1zooo;4 scc I 2 lrss+1 6 scc 6s1

¶63

::6::

¶64

t2- The direction to consider the respondent for vacancies in institutions "nearby Suryapct' was beyond the scope of juclicial re'iew and the relief sought. Engageme.t of contract Lecturers is governed by G-o.Ms.No. t42 dated 09.10.2000, which mandates a prescribed selection process through a Three-Man Committee rvhich cannot be bypassed.

¶65

It is to be noted that the reliance placcd by the learned Single Judge on vacancies of "Guest FacultJ/ is legally unsustainable. The posts of Contract Lecturer and Guest Faculgr are distinct cacires go'zerned by separate norms relating to recruitment, qualilicatiops, remuneration, and tenure. Directing consideration of the respondent for a cadre governed by different rules, for which the respo*dent neither applied nor was considered, is legally impermissible and is prejudicial to other eligible candidates.

¶66

It will not be out of context to note that the respondent,s engagement ended in March 2orr, and his first representation was made in March 2018, and thc writ petition was filed only in 2023. The unexplained and inordinate delay was not considered by the learned single Judge, though it constitutes an independent ground to decline discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The claims arising out of contractual engagements cannot be agitated after such prolonged lapse, as it unsettles settled administrative arrangem6ts.

¶67

1

¶68

Coacluslon

¶69

For the^{foregoingreasons' we hold that the learnedSingle} committed^{an error in grantingrelief to the resPondent'} Judge the^{settled principlesgoverningjudicial review,and in} contrary^to the^{delay and laches attributableto the respondent'} overlooking 16. In^{this regard' the orderdated17'O6'2025 passed by the} Iearned^{SingleJudge in W'P' No' 3878 of 2O23is hereby set aside'} and the^{said writ petition stands dismissed'}

¶70

t7. Accordingly,^{the Writ Appeal is allowed' No order as to costs'} As a^{sequel, miscellaneouspetitions' pending if any' stand}

I

\

closed.

SD,^.K.SHYLESHI JOTNT^REGIS

¶75

,/TRUE^COPY'/

¶76

SECTION^OFFTCER

¶77

To'1. T*o cc.^{to GP FORSERVICES l' High courtf} th State^{of Telangana} touTl 2. One^{CCto SRI V'BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY'AdvocatelOPUCl} 3. Two^{CD CoPies'}

BSK ry PMK

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810112026

JUDGMENT

WA.No.S ot 2026

.i\HI SHIE
o
10 tE8 itliil
L)
* *:
r('
PATC!
I