WRIT PETITION 9246 on 7 October 1994

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

REVTEW |.A.NO. 1 0F 2022

IN

WRIT APPEAL NO: 12'l OF 2017

Between:

Dr.P.Bhavani D/o. Late Sri P.Venkateswara Rao, aged about 62 years, Occ: DegreeCollege Lecturer (Telugu), Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Junior College. Baghlingampally,Hyderabad, R/o.MlG-1 , Block No.20, Flat No.6, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad - 500o44.College Lecturer (Telugu), Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Junior College. Baghlingampally,Hyderabad, R/o.MlG-1 , Block No.20, Flat No.6, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad - 500o44.

...REVIEW PETITIONERYAPPELLANT IN THE WRIT APPEAL

AND

'1 . The State of Telangana Rep. by its Secretary, Department of HigherEducation, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 O22.. The State of Telangana Rep. by its Secretary, Department of HigherEducation, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 O22.

2. The Commissioner & Director, Board of lntermediate Education, Nampally,Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

3. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar JuniorCollege, Rep. by its Correspondent,Baghlingampally, Hyderabad.Baghlingampally, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC praying that for thereasons stated in the Memorandum of grounds filed in support of the petition, theHigh Court may be pleased to review the orders passed in the Writ AppealNo.121 of 2017, daled 31 .12.2021 and accordingly allow the Writ Appeal This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the[\,4emorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon reading the Judgmentdaled 31 .12.2021 in W.A.No.121 of 2017 and upon hearing the arguments ofSri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, Senior Counsel rep. for Sri Y,V. Anil Kumar for the ReviewPetitioner and GP for Higher Education for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and noneappeared for the Respondent No.3, the Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYANAND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

Review I.A.No. I of 2022

lnWrit Appeal No.121 of 2OL7

ORDER: ['er ttp t lott't te ttrc Ctti"J Jusnce Ujjal BhuUai)

I{eard Mr.Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel forthe petitioner.

2. This Revier'r, Application has been filed seekingrevieu, ol [judgment ]and order dated 31.12.202 1 passed bya Division Bench ol tl.ris Court in W.A.No.121 of 2017 filedbv thc petitioner as the appellant.

3. Wc ma,r' mention that petitioner had approachedthis Court b-l' filing tu,o u,rit petitions being W.P.Nos.9246ol 200ti ancl 12556 ol 2O09. In W.P.No.9246 of 2OOB, thepraver maclc u'as lor a direction to the State to regularizetlre scrvice of the petitioner from 07.10.1994 in terms oftl'rc G.O.Rt.No.875, dated 15.07.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.32,datect 20.03.2O06 ancl thereafter to grant all consequential !

\

benefits like pay fixation, seniority, pension etc., with effectfrom 07.10.1994.

4. In the second writ petition i.e., W.P.No.12556 of2009, the prayer made was for setting aside the orderdated 09.03.2OO9 passed by the Commissioner, Directorateof Intermediate Education declining to grantscrVlcebene fits anterior to the date of regularization.

5. Both the writ petitions were heard and disposed oftogether by the learned Single Judge vide the judgmer.rtand order dated 01.L2.2O76. l,earned Single Judge notedthat petitioner's initial appointment as a part-time lecturrerin Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Junior College was not throughproperly constituted selection committee and sucl'rappointment rnas not as per rules. However, in tcrms of thethen policy o[ the Government, she was allor,r..ed to d rau'her salary in the minimum scale of pay in the post of jur-riorlecturer rvith effect from 07.10.1994. Subsequentl-\,, herse rvices were regularized with effect from 18.04. 1998.

Ii

6. When it was contended bv learned counsel for thepetitioner that similarly placed candidates were given suchbenefits, learned Single Judge rejected such a contention.Learned Single Judge pointed out that in those caseswhere benefits urere granted, candidates were admitted togrant-in-aid u,ith effect lrom 01.04.1994, which was notthe case of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner could notcontend that she '"r'as similarl-v placed with the othercandidates. Not finding an,y arbitrariness in the action ofthe respondent, learned Single Judge dismissed both thewrit petitions

7. Aggrieved b.r' the above order of the learned SingleJudge, petitioner preferrecl u'rit appeal being W.A.No.121 of20t7.

B. Though the t$'o w,rit petitions were dismissed by acommon orcler, those rvere separate writ proceedings.Ordinaril-v, t\\'o separate u'rit appeals ought to have beenfiled; ir-rstead onh. one rvrit appcal s'as preferred by thepetitior-rer rvh ich r.r,as irregular.

ItiI

9. Be that as it may, the said writ appeal beingW.A.No. I2l of 2017'*,as dismissed by a Division Bench olthis Court vide the order dated 31.12.2021. Division Benchafter referring to the facts observed that petitioner couldnot point out any statutory provision of law vvhich entitledher to be regularized with effect from 07.10.1994. She wasregularized on11, on account of the policy decision ol theState Government u'ith effect from 18.04.1998. Observingthat a backdoor entrant cannot be regularized from a dateof his or her choice, the Division Bench dismissed theappeal by upholding the order passed by the learned Sir-rgle.Jr-rdge.

10. We sec no error or infirmity, not to speak of anr'error apparent on the face of record, to warrant invocationof our revies' jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, petitior-rershould consider herself lucky that her services [q()t-]rcgr-r larized dcspite being a backdoor entrant. As aibackdoor entrant, petitioner was not entitled toregularization ol her services which is clearly in violation ofArticlc 14 ol the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, since the State Government, in terms of a policy decision,regularized her services, r,l,e refrain from expressing anydefinite opinion in this regard, but certainly petitioner isnot entitled to any benefit anterior to her date ofregularization.

I 1 . Review petition is dismissed with cost ofRs.25,OOO/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payableto Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabadwithin a period of eight (B) u,eeks.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shallstand closed. Hor.l'ever, there shall be no order as to costs.MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

REVIEW I.A.NO. 1 OF 2022

IN

WRIT APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2017

Cost Quantified by Hon'ble Court (That the Petitionerherein is directed to pay costs of Rs.25,0001 [(Twenty]Five Thousand only) to the Telangana State LegalServices Authority, Hyderabad within a period of eight(B) weeks).

TOTAL

Rs.

Ps

25000 - 00

25,000 - 00

To,

SD/- T. KRISHNA KUMARDEPUTY.REGISTRAR(sSECTION OFFICER

/iTRUE COPY//

1. The Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad

2. One CC to SRI Y. V. ANIL KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CCs to GP for Higher Education, High Court for the State of Telanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT]at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies.

MPGJP

BSR

ll

Ii

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/02/ 2023I1HE [S ][14]14:atIoL)2 4 l,lAR Zli,ZJ,\'\UDGMENT

REVIEW I.A.NO. 1 OF 2022INWRIT APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2017

DISMISSING THE REVIEW I.A.NO.1 OF 2022INWRIT APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2017WITH COSTS

a-r6\sc [\z ][']6sR