The Telangana High Court last week directed the state government to regularise the services of Anganwadi workers and Supervisors Grade-II, who have served on a contract basis for up to 25 years. The court also stated that past service, prior to regularisation, would be considered for pension and retirement benefits.
The state was allowed liberty to fill up any leftover vacancies after the regularisation of the services of the petitioners.
The bench of Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka pronounced the common order on August 19, 2025, addressing two writ petitions filed by employees of the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Project back in 2013. The petitioners contended that they were educationally qualified for the positions of Anganwadi workers and Supervisors Grade-II, and were selected through a proper process, but were appointed on a contract basis through a recruitment agency. This was due to a ban on appointments at the time.
Despite having been selected for sanctioned posts and having served for a long time, the government issued a notification in 2013 for the recruitment of Supervisors Grade-II. The new notification offered a 15 per cent weightage to the petitioners but required them to undergo the selection process again, which the petitioners argued was illegal and arbitrary. The court noted that the petitioners had undergone the due selection process. It was also pointed out that there was nothing on record to suggest they were unqualified or incompetent to perform their duties.
The Government Pleader, representing the state, argued that under the rules, the posts must be filled by direct recruitment and maintained that the rules do not permit the regularisation of services for contract employees. The government’s counter-affidavit stated that the petitioners could participate in the new selection process with the 15 per cent weightage, and those who were not selected would continue their contract employment. However, the court found this argument to be unreasonable, stating that it creates a “messy situation” for other job aspirants, as the actual number of available vacancies remains unclear.
“Means are as important as the end,” the judgment stated, adding that the ICDS Project aimed at addressing the health and nutrition needs of children and lactating mothers. “The petitioners having rendered services for decades by due selection process against regular sanctioned posts, albeit on contract basis due to a policy of ban at the relevant time, cannot be denied of their rightful claim for regularization on the ground that they are contract employees, when it is the respondent-Government that has taken the petitioners on contractual terms in view of the ban,” it further said.
The court found the government’s actions to be a violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights. It highlighted that the government, having utilised the services of these employees for decades after a due selection process against sanctioned posts, cannot now subject them to a fresh recruitment process. On the state’s argument that the petitioners can attend selection process with 15 per cent weightage facility and in case not selected, they would continue in contract position and the number of posts would be reduced to that extent in the direct recruitment under the impugned notification, the judgment noted that “this Court neither finds merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent-authorities, nor balance of convenience in their favour.”
