HYDERABAD: In a landmark judgment, the High Court on Tuesday declared Section 10-A of the Telangana (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 unconstitutional while making it clear that the services of contractual employees who have already been regularised would not be terminated.
A bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao was hearing a clutch of writ petitions filed by A Venkatram Reddy and others challenging the decision to regularise contract lecturers through Government Order (GO) 16 dated February 26, 2016. The GO amended the 1994 Act by introducing Section 10-A, allowing the state to regularise the services of contract lecturers who met specific criteria.
The petitioners argued that the regularisation violated the principles of fair recruitment under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents, particularly the Constitution Bench ruling in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. They contended that the contractual appointments were made without following a transparent selection process and deprived eligible candidates of a fair chance.
GO 16 outcome of unique challenges faced by Telangana, state tells HC
The petitioners pointed out that over 5,540 lecturer posts in junior, degree and vocational colleges were regularised without advertising the vacancies. They argued that the move was arbitrary, contrary to public policy, and violative of the 1994 Act’s objectives.
The state government defended its decision, citing the unique challenges that have cropped up during the formation of Telangana state. It argued that Section 10-A was introduced under the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, to address staffing issues in the nascent state. The government highlighted the six conditions stipulated in the GO for regularisation, including the requirement that contract employees had to be working as of June 2, 2014, and on sanctioned posts with full-time contracts. The bench observed that while the contractual employees were not recruited through a transparent process, their long tenure — spanning over 15 years — could not be ignored.
The court cited precedents such as ‘MA Hameed v State of AP’ and ‘Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of West Bengal’, which held that long-standing appointments should not be disturbed due to procedural irregularities.
However, the court strongly disapproved of the state’s method of bypassing regular recruitment procedures, declaring Section 10-A as ultra vires and unconstitutional.
Moving forward, the court directed the state to fill posts through lawful recruitment processes and not through regularisation of contract employees.
Just judgment
Employees already regularised under Section 10-A would not be terminated, orders bench
Govt directed to adhere strictly to constitutional and statutory norms in filling vacant posts