Telangana HC Repeals GO 16 Regularizing Contract Jobs

In a landmark ruling, the Telangana High Court declared Section 10-A of the Telangana (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994, unconstitutional.

The court emphasized, however, that the services of contractual employees already regularized under this provision would not be terminated.

The bench, led by Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, was reviewing a set of writ petitions filed by A Venkatram Reddy and others. The petitioners challenged the government’s decision to regularize contract lecturers through Government Order (GO) 16 dated February 26, 2016.

This GO amended the 1994 Act by introducing Section 10-A, which allowed the state to regularize contract lecturers who met specific criteria.

The petitioners argued that the regularization violated constitutional principles under Articles 14, 16, and 21, as well as the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. They contended that the contractual appointments were made without a transparent recruitment process, denying eligible candidates a fair opportunity.

They pointed out that over 5,540 lecturer posts in junior, degree, and vocational colleges were regularized without public advertisement, calling the move arbitrary and contrary to the objectives of the 1994 Act.

In its defense, the state government cited the unique challenges following the formation of Telangana and argued that Section 10-A, introduced under the AP Reorganization Act, 2014, was necessary to address staffing issues in the newly formed state.

The government also highlighted 6 conditions stipulated in the GO, including the requirement that contract employees must have been working as of June 2, 2014, and occupied full-time, sanctioned posts.

The court acknowledged that while the appointments were not made through a transparent process, the long tenure of the employees — some exceeding 15 years — could not be ignored. Referring to precedents such as MA Hameed v. State of AP and Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of West Bengal, the court held that long-standing appointments should not be disturbed due to procedural irregularities.

However, the court strongly criticized the state’s approach of bypassing regular recruitment procedures and ruled Section 10-A as ultra vires (beyond the legal authority) and unconstitutional.

The bench ordered the state to adhere strictly to constitutional and statutory norms in future recruitment, directing that vacant posts should be filled through lawful processes rather than regularizing contract employees.

Key Points of the Judgment:

– Employees already regularized under Section 10-A will not be terminated.

– The state has been directed to follow constitutional and legal norms for filling vacant posts going forward.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International