IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SATURDAY THIS THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.12881 of 2014 Between:
G.Nandi Reddy and 13 others . PETITIONERS And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Principal Secretary, School Education (SSA) Department, Secretariat, A.P. Hyderabad and 5 others . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.12881 of 2014
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 6th respondent in issuing the impugned orders in Rc.No.B1/2442/KGBVs/2013, dated 17.04.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.84 Finance (SMPC-II) Department, dated 17.04.2014 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Special Officers with all benefits.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The petitioners after their retirement as School Assistants/Head Masters in the Education Department were appointed as Special Officers in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas under the control of the respondents on contract basis. Subsequently, the respondents issued selection notification dated 11.09.2013 proposing to replace the petitioners with another set of contract employees. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.32986 and 35704 of 2013 before this Court and the learned single Judge of this Court directed continuance of the petitioners as Special Officers till the end of the academic year. The academic year was to end on 23.04.2014. The grievance of the petitioners is that before the end of the academic year the respondents issued the impugned relieving order on 17.04.2014 proposing to relieve them by 21.03.2014. They submit that in the aforesaid two writ petitions, the learned single Judge issued a general direction to continue the petitioners as Special Officers till the end of the academic year. It is further submitted that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.84 Finance (SMPC-II) Department dated 17.04.2014 directing that the services of the employees who were working on contract/outsourced basis as on March 31, 2014 are extended upto 30th June 2014. Therefore, the petitioners contended that the 6th respondent ought not to have relied upon the instructions issued by the 3rd respondent in the month of March, 2014. Their version is that after retirement they were considered to be appointed as Special Officers on contract basis and therefore, the question of their reporting at original place would not arise. Under these circumstances, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
The respondents in their counter affidavit contended inter alea as follows:
The petitioners are retired male officers who are engaged on ad h o c / contractual basis as a stop gap arrangement till regular arrangements are made. Now the regular arrangements are made for the post of Special Officers with women employees in the KGBV through process of recruitment/Selection. Therefore, the petitioners have to vacate and accommodate the newly selected women Special Officers instead of insisting upon for their continuance. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, however, the petitioners were continued till the end of the academic year 2014 which came to end by 23rd April 2014. G.O.Ms.No.84 Finance (SMPC- II) Department, dated 17.04.2014 is not applicable to the petitioners and it was limited to the posts which were approved by the finance department as per para 5(ii) of the G.O. The posts of the Special Officers held by the petitioners are not approved by the finance department. Since the academic year came to end, the services of the petitioners have to be discharged at the end of the academic year without any further extension as they are retired officers. Contending as above, the respondents sought to dismiss the writ petition.
Apart from relying on G.O.Ms.No.84 Finance (SMPC-II) Department, dated 17.04.2014, the petitioners relied on G.O.Ms.No.13 Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 01.07.2014 which is to the effect that services of the employees who were working on contract/outsourced basis as on March 31, 2014 with the prior approval of the Finance Department were extended upto June 30, 2014, and further, the services of those persons working on contract/outsourcing basis as on June 02, 2014 with the prior approval of the Finance Department be extended until further orders or till the actual need ceases, whichever is earlier. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on the G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 01.07.2014 submits that in view of the said G.O. the petitioners are entitled to continue in service.
Identical issue was dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1028/2014 and the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 14.07.2014 held that the petitioners therein were engaged purely on contract basis, they do not have even a semblance of right to continue beyond the period mentioned in the contracts and they cannot seek parity with the unemployed persons who are engaged on contract basis. The Division Bench concluded that the petitioners therein are not entitled to continue beyond the contract period.
The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The petitioners in the present writ petition cannot contend that in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 01.07.2014 they are entitled to continue beyond the contract period.
The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed in the light of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1028/2014. However, it is made clear that if salaries due, if any, for the working period of the petitioners, shall be paid to them forthwith. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 18.10.2014 Dsr