Hyderabad:In a landmark judgment, the Telangana High Court on Tuesday quashed Government Order (GO) 16, which was issued in 2016 to enable the state government to regularise contract employees. The High Court directed the state government to ensure that vacant government posts are filled through a lawful and transparent recruitment process, stating that contractual employees cannot be regularised as a means to fill these vacancies.
The order was hurriedly brought out by the BRS government a few months before the elections, and benefited many contract employees, many of them from the medical and education departments.
The court declared that the regularisation of contractual employees was unconstitutional and contrary to public policy. The High Court stressed that all future government recruitment must adhere to established procedures, including public notifications and compliance with reservation policies. It also warned against any attempts to circumvent these requirements.
A division bench comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao struck down the executive orders issued for insertion of Section 10-A into the Telangana (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994, as well as the government order (GO 16) issued on February 26, 2016, which had enabled the insertion of the provision.
The judges held that insertion Section 10-A was ultra vires the Constitution and not in accordance with the principles of public service recruitment.
Despite invalidating insertion of Section 10-A, the Court refrained from terminating the services of 5,544 contractual employees whose appointments were regularised via GO Ms No. 38 on April 30, 2023. The bench reasoned that these employees had served on a contractual basis since 2009, and dismissing them would be inequitable given their decade-long tenure.
The judgment followed a batch of petitions filed by unemployed youth, including postgraduates and qualified NET/SET candidates, who contended that the posts filled through regularisation should have been advertised for open recruitment. They argued that GO 16 unfairly barred them from competing for government jobs and violated their right to equal opportunity.
The court faulted the regularisation of contractual employees as a “one-time measure” by the previous BRS government. It deemed the policy adopted by then BRS state government in filling the posts with contract employees was an opaque exercise of power that violated established recruitment laws.
The bench noted that such appointments were made without following proper procedure like issuing advertisements, considering reservation rosters, and assessing eligibility, undermined fairness and meritocracy.
The court clarified as invalid the insertion of Section 10-A under Section 101 of the AP Reorganisation Act which governs modifications, amendments, or repeals of existing laws. The court said that Section 10-A of 1994 Act ws a non-obstante clause and such overriding provision is only in relation to other provisions of the same Act and non-obstante clause cannot have an overriding effect on any other enactment.
Reactions
Dr B. Rajeshkhanna, general secretary, Telangana All Universities Contract Teachers Association (TAUCTA), welcomed the Telangana High Court’s decision to strike down GO No. 16. He expressed optimism about the path forward for university contract faculty members.
“This decision offers a real opportunity to finally regularise the 1,445 university contract faculty who have been left out of earlier efforts due to their institutions’ autonomous status,” he told Deccan Chronicle.
Dr Rajeshkhanna urged the government to move quickly, stressing the need for immediate action by newly appointed Vice Chancellors and governing bodies to address the situation.
Supriya Gopa, a healthcare worker on contract, said, “Our concern is that this decision might lead to additional delays in job opportunities for thousands of unemployed youth, especially as the government pushes to regularise certain groups first. While we respect long-serving contract employees, there must also be a fair focus on new job creation for those waiting.”
