The High Court For The State Of Telangana vs. Ganta Sudhakar Rao
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
First Hearing
Listed On:
25 Aug 2023
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.9 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17642- 17643/2023
1
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-06-2023 in WP No. 24506/2019 12-06-2023 in WP No. 8096/2021 passed by the High Court For The State Of Telangana At Hyderabad)
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GANTA SUDHAKAR RAO & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.159243/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.159242/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )
Date : 25-08-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
| For Petitioner(s) | Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR |
|---|---|
| Mr. Madhav Maira, Adv. | |
| Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. |
For Respondent(s) Mr. Chirag Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aparna Soni, Adv. Mr. Balaji Yelamanjula, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR
- Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv.
- Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR
- Mr. Sv Ramana, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Heard Mr. Uttara Babbar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The counsel would submit that the direction of the Division Bench of the High Court declaring that the respondents are entitled to regularization is unmerited as they were contractual employees. Secondly, the High Court erred in observing that the respondents were appointed against posts sanctioned in the Temporary Special Magistrate's Court established initially for a period of 5 years and extended from time to time. The counsel would refer to the counter affidavit filed in the High Court to say that a specific plea was taken that the respondents are not working against regular sanctioned posts and therefore their services cannot be regularized.
2. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the contractual employees would submit that they were inducted through a regular process of written test and viva-voce and the State has created posts for their accommodation. And if the State is not averse to accommodating these long serving contractual appointees, why should the High Court come and challenge the reasonable direction of the Division Bench of the High Court.
3. Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.
[DEEPAK JOSHI] [KAMLESH RAWAT] COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
2