T SUBBAIAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners 9 in number filed the present writ petition praying for regularisation of their services by the second respondent by following G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 contending that they have been working since several years as NMRs. The respondents filed a counter.

(2.) At the outset Mr. Ram Mohan Reddy appearing for the second respondent brought to my notice that his clients have already regularised the services of petitioners 1, 2 and 8 and the case of others are under consideration. Any regularisation of the services of the other petitioners will be in accordance with law i.e., observation of the rule of reservation and possession of the requisite qualifications and availability of vacancies. Firstly I am of the opinion that G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 is not applicable to the facts of the case, as the second respondent cannot come within the definition of 'State' and instrumentality of Government, under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence the respondent cannot withhold the regularisation of the services of the petitioner on the ground of non-fulfilment of any conditions mentioned in the G.O. as the Mutt is registered under the provisions of Endowments Act and in fact an officer of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments is the custodian of the Mutt. The Mutt is amenable to Writ Jurisdiction of this Court as it is a statutory authority. It is not in dispute that the other petitioners have also put in considerable length of service and they are also entitled to get their services regularised. But at the same time any regularisation of their services should be subject to rule of reservation as contemplated under the rules.

(3.) With regard to the other contention raised by the Counsel for the respondent that unless vacancies are available their services cannot be regularised. The Supreme Court repeatedly held that the very fact, that the employees are continued in service for considerable length of time, (i.e.) for two to three years, a presumption arises, that there is need for their service in the organisation. The fact that the petitioners are working for several years was not disputed, and necessarily a presumption arises that there is need for their continuance and the authorities are expected to create required number of posts for regularising their services. Accordingly a direction is given to the respondent to create new posts for absorption of the other petitioners, within 3 months and thereafter consider the cases of the petitioners for regularisation subject to rule of reservation to be followed in matters of appointment and also keeping in view the qualifications prescribed for the posts held by them. The consideration should be contemplated within 3 months from the date of creation of new posts.