Aeronautics Township Educational Committee (Atec) Vs N.Sharada

Petition under^{Section151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the High Court may be pleased to}

¶21

ii i!

¶22

suspend the^{,Jrder passed in w.P.No.9563of 2014,Dt'23-06-2025pending} disposal^{of the main writ appealin the interest of lustice'}

¶23

Counsel for^{Allpellants : Ms' V'UMA DEVI}

¶24

CounselforReispondentNo.l:SRIG.VIDYASAGAR,REPRESENTING Ms. K UDAYA^SRI

¶25

Counsel for^{RersPondent Nos'2 & 3 :} -

¶26

The Court^{macle the followingjudgment: -}

¶27

AT HYDERABAD

¶28

AND

¶29

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJI'STICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN}

¶30

WRIT APPEAL^{No.253 of 2026}

¶31

Dated: 02.03.2026

¶32

Between

¶33

Aeronautics^{Township Educational Committee(ATEC)}

and another.

Appellants

and

N.Sharada

and2 others.

.Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Learned counsel^{Ms. V.Uma Devi appearsfor the appellants.}

¶42

Learned Senior Counsel^{Sri G.Vidya Sagar, representing learned}

¶43

counsel Ms. K.Udaya Sri,^{appears for respondent No.l}

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶45

2

¶46

'[he present appeal is filed against the judgment dated 23.06.2025 passed by the learned writ court in w.p.No.9563 of z0l4 which was filed by respondent No.l herein.

¶47

The challenge in the instant appeal is to the direction of the learned writ court passed in the writ petition to regularise respondent No.l within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order with consequential benefits, allowances and postretirement benefits as applicable to the post and arrears, if any to be paid to her.

¶48

Tht: background facts leading to institution of the writ petition are that respo,dent No.l was offered appointment after a regular interview on a consolidated salary of Rs.l200/- per rnonth vide offer of appointment dated 22.02.1994. She was terminated on 29.03.200g on the ground that the strength of the students in the school where she was working hzrs reduced from 2000 to 800. The writ petition, being W.P.No.l 1778 of 2008, flrled by her assailing the termination order was allowed on 09.07.2013 setting aside the termination order. It was held that she would be entitled for continuity of service and all attendant benefits. No direction for regularisation of service was issued. The learned writ court, however, left it open to respondent No.l to file a

¶49

3

¶50

separate writ^{petition for regularisationor for other benefitsif at all her} services are not^{regularised. This led to filing of the present writ petition} with a prayer to^{declarethe action of the appellantsand respondents} No.2 and 3 in not^{regularisingthe servicesof respondentNo'l from the} date of initial^{appointmenti.e., .22.02.1994, as illegal, arbitraryand} unjust and for^{a consequentialdirection to regularise the servicesof} respondent No.l^{with effect from the date of appointmentwith} consequential^{benefits. The learnedwrit courtconsidered the stand of} the parties and also^{the decisionsrelied upon by them and finally} directed the official^{respondentsto regularise/absorb respondent No' l} within four months^{from the date of receiptof a copyof the order'The} appellants,^{who are respondents No.3 and 4 in the writ petition,being} aggrieved have^{preferred this appeal.}

¶51

One of the^{grounds takenis that the schoolsmaintained by the} appellants'^{organisation,a private society,are not amenableto the writ} jurisdiction. This plea has been^{contestedby respondent No'[ on the} ground that the earlier^{writ petition of 2008 was allowedsettingaside} the termination order.^{Therefore,this questionis no longer open to be} raised.

I

4

r-'

The appellants have also raised the ground that the learned writ court has considered the case of respondent No.l at par with the teach;ng employees, whereas respondent No.r has been working on a non-tt:aching post on a consolidated salary. It is, however, not in dispute that tt:rmination of respondent No.l was set aside with continuity in servic,: and till the passing of the impugned order, she has been retained in service, in effect, for thirty years and more. [n those circumstances, it is apparent that there is a need for keeping her in employment in the appellants' organisation. [n such circumstances, the learned writ court has becn persuaded to issue directions for regularisation/absorption in service with consequential benef,rts.

¶56

[Iowever, we are of the vierv that the learned writ court ought not to have issued a direction to straightaway regularise/absorb respondent No.l in service. [nstead, the direction should be issued to consider her case for regularisation keeping into account her long years of service, appointnrent through a regular interview and the need of such work in the organisation of the appellants for thirty years and more and also ^ keeping in mind the ratio rendered by the Apex Court in the decisions on the subjer:t.

¶57

5

¶58

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants' organisation would consider the case of respondent No.l for regularisation, if so directed.

¶59

[n that view of the matter, the instant appeal is disposed of by modifying the impugned direction of the learned writ court to the effect that the appellants and respondents No.2 and 3 shall consider the case of respondent No.l for regularisation/absorption within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say, dependent upon such decision, consequential benefits shall flow in tavour of respondent No.l. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SD'.MOHD.^ISMAIL

To

/,TRUE COPY'/

OFFICER utics Limited,

¶66