HYDERABAD: Justice P Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court has issued a directive to the Registrar of the University of Hyderabad to immediately re-engage the services of several petitioners and continue their employment until the end of the term of the scheme for which they were hired.
This ruling follows a batch of three writ petitions filed by Dasari Kotaiah and two others, seeking redress through a writ of mandamus. The petitioners had challenged the actions of the respondents, with particular focus on the Registrar of the university. They contested an office order dated December 7, 2022, issued by the Centre for Women’s Studies, which outlined the termination of their services, set to take effect from the afternoon of March 31, 2023.
The petitioners claimed that this action was illegal and arbitrary. Furthermore, the petitioners sought consequential relief to direct the respondents to permit the continuation of their services as Data Entry Operators/Office Attendants at the Centre for Women’s Studies. They invoked a UGC order dated April 28, 2023, which supported their case. They also requested steps for the regularization of their services, including receiving the pay scale corresponding to their positions.
Counsel for the petitioners highlighted that the respondents had failed to re-engage the services of the petitioners. They presented various documents, including appointment orders, to demonstrate that the petitioners had undergone a selection process and had served without issue. The university had even recommended the extension of their services as part of the UGC Scheme. However, the registrar chose to engage services through an outsourcing agency, leaving the petitioners in a precarious position.
In response, the senior counsel representing the UGC clarified its role, stating that it approved the scheme and provided financial assistance. After carefully considering the arguments presented by all parties, the Telangana High Court issued a clear directive. The Registrar of the University of Hyderabad was ordered to re-engage the services of the petitioners without delay and continue their employment until the scheme’s scheduled conclusion.