D RADHA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to regularise her services as Junior Assistant in the Hindi Maha Vidyalaya (College of Arts, Commerce &. Science), Nallakunta, Hyderabad, and pay regular salary and all other allowances due to her in the Government scales of pay from the date of her appointment and release grant-in-aid to the post of the petitioner, or in the alternative to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the post of Sore Keeper in the said College. Factual background, in brief, appears to be that the petitioner was employed in the 3rd respondent College as Junior Assistant in the year 1992, on temporary and daily-wage basis, on a consolidated remuneration by the management. Even as on today, she claims that she has been continuing as such. She sought for regularisation of her services in view of the long service rendered by her in the 3rd respondent College. She claims to have made a representation to the Commissioner, College Education, Hyderabad, seeking regularisation of her services, the result of which is not known. Hence, the present writ petition.

(2.) A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 controverting the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Though the petitioner made the College as party-respondent (as third respondent in this writ petition), the 3rd respondent did not file any counter-affidavit vindicating its stand. From the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner was engaged by the third respondent College as a Junior Assistant, on a consolidated remuneration, on daily-wage and temporary basis only. Though the petitioner had filed number of material papers, she did not file any appointment order issued to her by the 3rd respondent-College.

(3.) It is obvious that the petitioner is fully aware of the nature of her appointment, i.e., on temporary basis with consolidated remuneration. Therefore, she is deemed to have the knowledge of her status of employment/engagement in the 3rd respondent-College and the consequences thereof.