[ 3301 I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

WRIT PETITION NOS: 36885 AND 36889 OF 2025

W.P.NO: 36885 OF 202s

Between:

Ponnam Madhavi, D/o. Satyanarayana, Aged about 49 years, School

Guidance Counsellor (SA), O/o- The Director, State Council of Educational

Research and Training (SCERT), Telangana State, Hyderabad. Rl/o. Flat No.

602, B-Block, Ridd hi's Pramukh Elegance, Kompa lly, nrd"rubl:;:f

$13r*

=

*

AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, School Education

Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Director of School Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

3. The Director of State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT),

Hyderabad.

4. The District Educational Officer, Karimnagar District.

...RESpONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the

nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents

in issuing repatriation orders to the Petitioner vide proceedings RC No. 938/Ser,lll-

112025, dt. 2411112025, and consequential orders in RC. No.

26lEstVTSCERIl2O24, dl. 2911112025, even though, the Petitioner is not working

on deputation, without verifying the records and orders of the Government in

G.O.Rt.No.8'13, School Education (PE-PROG.ll) Dept., dt. 1111112011, as highly

illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

lndia and consequently, set aside the impugned orders and further direct the

Respondents to retain and continue the Petitioner in the 3rd Respondent's office

(SCERT), with all service and monetary benefits.

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cit< rmstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct

the Respondents to continue the Petitioner in the 3rd lespondent's office

(SCERT), by suspending the operation of the impugned t 1)ceedings RC No'

938/Ser.lll-1/2025, dt. 24.11.2025, issued by the 2nc Respondent and

consequential orders in RC. No. 26lEstt/TSCERTl2O24, dt.','-t 111/2025, issued by

the 3rd Respondent and to Pass

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

Between:

1. The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, I r;hool Education

Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. Thd Director of School Education, Telangana State, Hyr'r rabad.

3. The Director of State Council of Educational Research r r d Training (SCERT)'

Hyderabad.

4. rhe District Educational officer, Karimnagar District.

.:FlglSt=r?t^1r,

AND

Ponnam Madhavi, D/o. Satyanarayana, Aged abor 49 years, School

Guidance Counsellor (SA), Oio. The Director, State O uncil of Educational

Research and Training' (SCERT), Telangana State, Hyj rrabad. Fi/o Flat No.

602, B-Block, Riddhi's Pramukh Elegance, Kompally, Hvr errabad - 50$131r*

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci ( umstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to

vacate the interim orders dated. 09-12-2025 in WP.No.36BB5 of 2025 dismiss the

Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANGI{

COUNSEL FOR SRI POODATTU

AMARENDER,ADVOCATE

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

, SENIOR

W.P.NO:36889 0F 202s

Between:

A.Uma Rani, D/o. Harischander Rao, Aged- about

.55 .years,

Science

Srroervisor (sA-Phv.SC), O/o. State councrl of Educational Research and

iiinino iSieiT), felanqana State, Hyderabad. R/o. Flat No 701, Block-10'

Hill Rid6d Springd, Near lSB, Gachibowli, Hvderabad.

...'ET,TIONER

AND

'1 . The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, School Education

Deoartment. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

z. in6 oirectoi of School Edu-cation, Telangana State, Hyderabad'

.

5. fne Oirector of State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT),

Hyderabad.

4. The District Educational Officer, Adilabad District

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be

pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the

nature of writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents

in issuing repatriation orders to the Petitioner vide proceedings RC No 938/Ser.lll-

1t2O25, dt. 24.11.2025, and consequential orders in RC No'

2olEstt/TSCERTl2O24, dt. 29.1 1.2025, even though, the Petitioner is not working

on deputation, without verifying the records and orders of the Government in G.o.

Rt. No' 462, School Education (SER.V) Dept.' dt. 08.07.2008, as highly illegal'

unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of lndia and

consequently, set aside the impugned orders and further direct the Respondents

to retain and continue the Petrtioner in the 3rd Respondent's office (scERT), with

all service and monetary benefits.

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct

the Respondents to continue the Petitioner in the 3rd Respondent's office

(SCERT), by suspending the operation of the impugned proceedings RC No'

938/Ser.lll-'t/2025, dt. 24.11.2025, issued by the 2nd Respondent and

consequential orders in RC. No. 26lEstt/TSCERI12024, d|.29.11 .2025, issued by

the 3rd Respondent.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI' SENIOR

COUNSEL FOR SRI POODATTU AIV ARENDER

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following:'COMMON ORDER

-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

WRIT PETITION Nos.36885 and 36889 of202s

Dated 26th March, 2026.

Betwee n:

Ponnam IVladhavi

I)etitroncrs

AND

The State of 'lclangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Scl-rool liducation Departmcnt, Sccx'tariat,

Ilydcrabad, and olhers.

Rcspondcnts

COMMON ORDER:

Since the ll-s in thesc u,rit pr:titions is onc and Lhc samc, thc5r

are analogousll, heard togcthcr antl :rrt' r;rkcn trp lirr disposal b-r, rvar,

of this common order.

2. Thcsc Writ Pctitions zrrc hlcd sccl<ing to dcclare the repatriation

orders dated 24.11.2O2r issued b_v rcspondcnt No.2, and thc

conscqucntial rclieving ordcr dal-cd )c).1I )O25, rssucd b]. rcspondr_,nt

No.3, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, ancl violal-ive of Articlcs 14 and t6 ol

the Constitution of India, arrd conscqucrlLl,v, to sct zrsidc thc said

2

PK, ,I

Iv.I,.A,.,. ti8.r & 36889 of 2025

ordcrs, with a lurthcr direction to the respondent i lo (ionlinllc thc

petilioners in scrvice at thc oflicc of respondt r No.3 with all

conscquclltial scrvice all(l monctar- bcucfits.

3. I lcard Sri l)ratap Naray.Irl Sarlghi, lcarncd Sc.' or Counst l, and

Sfl Poodattu Amarender, lcartlcd counscl ap! larirlg for the

pt:titioncrs, ancl learned Goverllmcnt l)leadcr for Sr:r r ,t:es I, appcaring

on behalf of thc respondcnts. For the purposc ol l'ln\cnietlcc, thc

pctitioncr in W.P.No.36885 oI 2025 is hercinalt I rcferrcd to as

pctitioner No. 1 ar-rd Lhc pctitioner in W.P.No.36[ fj9 of 2025 as

pr-'t itioncr No.2.

4. Le:rrncd cout-rscl li)r thc pctitioners submit lf i t pctltioncr No l

$'as initially appointed :rs a Scc'otrdat-y Gr:]dc 'l'cach. '

orr 26 10' 1998'

in thc erstwhilc f(arimnagar l)isLrict through thr' ).strict Sclcction

Colnmittcc aftcr duc process of selcction, and r.l'tr s I -t.er promrlted as

School Assistant (Dnglish) on 03.03.2006. Pe titiorr t No.2 u as also

appointcd as a Secondary (irade Teacher on l1oil. 1998 in the

crstu,hile Adilabatl I)istrlct throttgh the District Sc I clion CotnrniLtec

and r,r,a s arlso promotcd as ScLrool Assistant (Plrvr i:al Science) on

20.1O.2OO2. It is submittcd that petitioner Ntr. 1 r'"as deptr[ed as

Program Olflccr in tht' olfice of respondent No.3 I I ''crrns of lorcign

J-

3

PK' .]

W.P.No.36U85 & 3b889 of 2025

service, in accordance u,ith G.O.(P).No.10 dated 22.10.1993, and she

joined duty as such on 21. I0.20I O. 'lhcrcaltcr,

rhe Govcrnment

issucd G-O.Rt.No.8lll dalcd I 1.1 l.2O l I . appoirrting hcr br- uav ol

transfer as School Guidancc and Counselor in the officc of respondent

No.3, in accordance with thc statutory rules issucd under

G.O.Ms.No.538 dated 20.1 1.1998, which govern the appointments in

SCERT. Similarly, pe[itioner No.2 u,zrs initi:rlly dcputcd to the office of

respondent No.3 on 26.02.2007 but she u,as repatriatcd to her parent

unit vidc proccedings datcd 05 07.2O08. Subscclucntll,, she rvas also

appointed by u,ay o[ translcr:rs Scicnce Supr:r-r,isor in thc olficc of

respondcnt No.3 vide G.O.llt.No.462 datcd 08.07.2008, in accorclance

with thc alorcsaid G.O-l\4s.No.538 datcd 20.1 1 .1998.

5. It is further submitted that consequcnt upon bilurcation o[ thc

State on O1.06.2016, the posts u,erc distributed among both the State

in 58:42 ratio, and the pctitioners herein werc irtlocatcd to thc Srate of

Telangana, and thcir rvorking units rr,erc shor.r rr as Director of SCtrltT,

'lelangana State, and the.1' havc continucd dischargir.rg thcir dutics.

Flon,ever, on 23.O1.2024 and 25.0 ).2024. Lltc (iovcrnrncnt issued

orders, instructing rcspondent No.3 to canccl ('crtain depu[zrtions and

to repatriate the staff rvorking undcr his conrrol. r\ccordingly, alter

thorough verification of records, respondcnt No.2 furnished a detailed

4

rcport to lht' (iovtrrnmcnt viclc lcttcr dated 27 01 202', '

clczrrl)' statlng

thiit tirc pctitlollcrs u'crc r'vorking in thc olfice ol rcsl :nclcnt No'3 by

rva1, o[ appointme nt by transfer in regular and existrr I vac:rncics' and

rc(lLlested the (iovcrnment to issue appropriate orrit t ; in tlle mattcr'

llorr,cvcr.troordcrshavcbeenpasSedbytheGoVernl])]1tSofar,

PK"1

W PN., .

/r rll5 8 36839 (y'202'5

r r )

-c scntertions of

: ntiltuing in t hc

orders ol tl-tc

(r. lt is

cnrplclvccs

ol'fir:e'oI

rcsporldcnt No.2

Inr mcdiatclY, thc

rcpatrialc thcnl

rcspondcnl No-3

furth0r submittcd that basing on the

uniorr. alleglng that thc petitioncrs arc

rcsporrdcllL No 3 clcspitc t[-rc caucelatiot

OoVernmcnt, resllondent No 3 adclressed a lctter cl;l r c 25 01 !1025 to

for canccllation of the

petitioners submitted

petitiolr('s' dePul zrtton s'

thcir rr'l I es(lntations lo

rcsp<rt-tclctrt No.2 on 03 07 2-025, c'larilying lhat th(]i ilrc not rtorking

orr dcputation bllt \'crc appointcd by '"va1' o[ trans i r in the olficc ol

r'('spondcllt No.3, in accordance with thc rulcs llor:ver' resJronclct-rt

No.2 issttcd Lhc impugncd proccedings datcd 24' 2025' directit'tg

rcsPoltdcnt No..] to canccl the pctitione rs' alleged r t il ut'ltions and to

to their parent dcpartment:i'

Clonscqucrrtl]"

issued thc impugned reliving or l':rs' botl'r dated

)g.11.2O2r, instructlng the pclitioners to rc1r rt befort: I)DO'

liarimnargarr ar.rcl DEO, Adilabad, rcspcctively'

-aa-r.

5

PK, .J

W.P.No.36B85 & 36889 of 2025

7. [t is further submitted that the posts of School Guidance and

Counselor and Science Supervisor in SCERT are catcgorized undcr

Class-[ posts under the rules issue in G_O.Ms.No.538 dated

20. 11.1998 and thc said posts are rcquired to bc firllecl in by transfer

from School Assistants. As such, the pctitioncrs' appointmcnts are

not deputations but regular appointment made by u,a1.o[ rransler in

accordance rvith the statutory rules. It is furthcr submitted that the

petitioners' ere appointed by way of transfcr b-v- virtuc of the

Government orders vide G.O.Rt.No.813 dated 11.1 1.201 I and

G.O.lRt.No.462 dated 08.07.2008, rcspecrively, zrnd neirhcr

respondent No.2 nor respondent No.3 has the authorit_ to canccl the

said Government orders. [{os'cver, rvithout waiting lor thc orders

from the Government and u,ithout vcriflring thc records, thc

respondents havc issued the impugned orclers in a high,hancled and

arbitrary manner, erroneously Lreating thc pctitioners appointmellt

as deputation, and the same is a clear case of abuse of power and

insubordination. Thus, the impugned orders are highly illegal,

unjust, arbitrary, withcut application of mind, and contrary to the

aforcsaid Rules. Therefore, learned counsel seek indulgence of this

Court to set aside the impugncd proceedings datcd 21.1 1.2O25 and

conscquential reliving orders dated 29.11.2025, \,ith a dircction to

6

PK, ,]

WP Ao. i 98.; & 36889 of2025

thc respondcnts to retain and continue the petitior-r,: s in the office of

rcspondcnt No.3.

8. On tltc other hand, learned Government plea l :-, appearing on

behall ol thc respondents, submits that both the tetirioners rvere

initially appointcd as Secondary Grade Teachers in I e )'ear

I 999 in

Mar-rdal Praja Parishad School under Zilla Parish:rrl N,lanagement in

tl're erstu'hilc l(arimnagar and Adilabad Districts r:spectively, ancl

n'cre latcr promotcd as Schoo1 Assistants in :l ,()6 and 2OO2,

rcspcctivel.v. tt is submitted that upon considering t ^ rir requests, the

pctitioners \,cre posred in thc ofl-rce of respondc No.3 only on

dcputation/ tcrms of forcign service, in accordance s i tr G.O.(P).No. 10

datccl 22- 10. I993. I)etrtioner No.1 was deputed in tlr year 2010 as a

Program C)lficcr, u,hile, petitioner No.2, who was orig i rall1. dcpured in

thc vear 2OO7 to rvork in the Adolescence Edu: rt.ion Cell, rvas

subsequentlv posted as Science Supervisor in the ,,:rrr 2008. It is

submitted that thc Govcrnment issued orders vidt G.O.Rt.No.813

dated 11.11.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.462 dated O8.O7 !( ()8, p651lng ths

pctitioners as School Guidauce Counselor and Sc r rLce Supervisor

respectivelv, subject to the condition of implement,l iln of thc Fair

Share Principlcs.

7

PK, J

W P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025

9. It is submitted that in l-he year 2024, respondent No. I has

revicrvc-d lhe deputations o[ all the crnplol,ees and issued ordcrs vidc

Ir,[emos dated 23.01.2O24 and 25.01.2024, drrecting canccllarion and

repatriation of all deputations beyond three years'period. As these

orders rvere never modified or withdrawn, in pursuance thereof,

respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings daLed 24.71.2025,

canceling the deputation of the petitioners and consequential rclieving

ordcrs dated 04.12.2025, were issued by rcspondent No.3, which u.erc

con'rmunicated to thcm through WhatsApp as the pctrtioners \'erc

unavzrilable in the office oI respondenL No.3.

10. [t is fur[her submitted that the peLitioners are governed under

the Unified Service Rules of Teachers working in (iovernment and

Zllla Parishad Schools issued under G.O.Ms.No.538 dated

t6.1 1.1998, which provides for recruitment by transler on the basis

ol a criteria that may be fixed by the Govcrnment from time to time.

I-lou'evcr, the said Unihed Servicc Rules were sct aside bv a Division

Bench of this Court in M. Kesa.uulu qnd others u. State oJ Andhra

Prad.esh and otherst, and the matter as carried to the Hon,ble

Apex Court. As such, once the very sourcc of the pctit-ioners'posting

u,as struck down, and it is afhrmed that the services of teachers of

| 2003 (6) ALD 522 (DB)

8

PK,.I

t{lPNo I t85 & .)6881) of 2025

Govcrnment sclrools

^nd

zilla Parisl-rad schools arc I stinct s.rvices

undcr thc Pr-csidenrral Ordcr, thc petitioncrs, bc ng local body

emplovecs, citrrnot claim a righL to hold posts i1 a Statc-levcl

Government institution likc SCDRT or claim any rcl r I basing on thc

said G.O. It is lu rthcr submitted that aJter the Unif r I Scrvice Rules

in G.O.Ms.No.538 u'crc struck dorvn, the Governnr nt issued neu,

Rulcs undcr (l.O.l\,ls.Nos.95 and 96, both dated 2._<. )7.20O5, rvhich

u,erc also str-ucl< dorvr-r by a Division Bench ol lhis Corrrt in

Goaernment oJ A.P. and others u. P. Vemq. Red.d. r and. others2,

u,hich

',vas also :rlfirmccl by t}'rc Hon'ble Apex Court. l'hereaftcr, thc

Governmcnt harl issrrcd lrcsh ad hoc rules vide G.(). 4s.No.12 daLed

23.OI.2009, govcrnir-re thc tcachers o[ local body schr < ls, ar-rd there is

no provision und<:r tl-rcsc rules for recruitment by trr tsfer of School

Assistants to SCIEtR'l'. IIencc, there is presently no sr.l ttor).provision

cnablir.tg pcrmancnt rransler of Zllla Parishad teach( -j

into SCERT

sen,icr:. It is further sLtbmittcd that cluring lhc State r< trganization in

2O 14, onlv thc posts s,erc provisionally allocatr_'rl and nor. the

individuals, and the said allocation never converted I r:ir depulation

into regular absorptron. Therefore, the petitioners (.. tnot clailn for

continuation in the 0lfice of rcspondent No.3 as a : atter of right.

,2007

{4) ALD 209 (DBl

9

PK, J

W. P. No.36885 & 36a89 of2025

Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ. petitions. Reliance has

been placed on t-he following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and

thc Division Bench of the erstu'hile High Court of Judicature of

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad:

il Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiga. Nirtnan Nigam u. P,K.

Bhatnagor and. others3

ii)Nesar Ahmed and. clnother u

othersa,

State oJ Jhq.rkhand. and.

iii) Union o;f India u. Phq.ni Busha.n Kundu and. otherss,

ivl Jgostnanna.gee Mishra u. Strrte of Od.isho. and others6,

vl M. Kesavulu and others u. Stqte oJ Andhra Prad.esh and.

others (referred supra), and;

vll Gouernment of A.P. and others u. P. Vema Reddg and others

(rclerred supra),

11. In rcply, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that

although the petitioners were ini[ially appointed as Secondary, Grade

Teachers in Zilla Parishad schools and u,erc subsequcntly promotcd

as School Assistants, they wcre posted in the office of rcspondent

No.3 against the sanctioned vacancies, and the said postings were not

stop-gap arrangements, but were made through lormal Government

Orders. It is lurther submitted that during the rcorganization of thc

r (2007) r{ scc 498

1

(201+) 11 SCC 394

I

Crvrl Appcal \o.22850 o12024 datcd l8 t2.2024

6

2025 SCC Onlrnc SC 117

10

PK, J

W.P.Na.: ( l'35 B: 36889 of 2O25

State in 2O 14. the posts held by the petitioners I SCER'I' werc

allocated to the Statc ol

'l'cl:rng:rrla

Vide proceedings (L ted 01 06 2014

and Lhe pctiliorlers \'crc contirluccl zLccordingly virlr proceedings of

respondentNo.lldalcd0206.2Ol4.Assuch,the(r'rltcrltionoflhe

respondents that onl]' the posts were allocated I I the State ol

Telangana ancl not thc individuals is contrary to thc I rders issued by

the Govcrnm(rnl vide G.O.Ms.Nos.241 and )+ ; tloth dated

01.06.2014.

12. It is furt l-rer submitted that the Governmelrt issr'ted Memos

datcd 23.O1.2024 ancl 2-->.O1.2024, directing :rrnccllation of

deputations cxr:eeding tllree vcars, and re spondet: t No'2 soughl a

categorical clarification about thc petitioners

'"

t t: Ietter dated

27.O1.2024, btrt no inlorrnaLion r'va s furnished thertr f As such' the

assumption of the rcspondents that in the absen< ( of any specihc

orders,theMemosdatecl230l.2024aod25'Ol'2O')'+\vouldprevailis

wholly misleading atLld Lllltenal)lc. Further, lhe sai<l I\'{emos are also

inalrplicablc to Lhc l)ctiti()rlcrs.

since lheir posting irr SiCtrRT u'as not

on deputatiott but bv u ay ol appoiLrtment by trar 'r f:r by virtue of

G.O.Ms.No.813 daled 1i-11.2011 and G O NI No 462 datcd

O8.07.2008. It is sLl[)mittcd that the rcsponrl' rlts themselves

addrcssecl communications to thc Government ,:le -Lfying that the

71,

PK, J

w.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025

pclitioncrs' were postcd not on dcputation basis but by transfers.

I?urther, ririthout artv orders of cancelling their original transfer

ordcrs, respondent Nos.2 and 3 ought not to have trcatcd the

pctitioners as dcpurees and issued the prescnt impugned orders. It is

further submitted that the impugncd relicving orders were issued in a

highly arbitrary and hasty manner, without proper service, and even

during subsistencc of the sfatus quo orders ol this Court. As such,

thc subsequent Government Memo dated 04.12.2025 ratifying the

impugncd action is zrlso contrar),to the interim protection granted by

[his Court.

13. It is further submitted that the reliance placcd upon thc

applicability of the Rulcs issued in G.O.Ms.No.538 clated 20.ll.Dga,

is misplaced, as the pctitioncrs were promotcd to the post of School

Assistanls in purst: ance of the rules issued by the Government in

G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 25.O7.2005, which provides for appointment of

School Assistzrnts to thc posts in the SCtrRT, under in Rule-2, Class-1,

CaLtegorS, I9 to 21 thcrein. Furthcr, para 5(2)(b) of thc Presidential

Order-2O18, provides for transfer or appointment by transfer of a

pcrson from any local cadrc to any ofhce or cstablishment to rvhich

the said order does not apply. As such, since SCERT, being a State

Ievel institution, is excludcd from the purvier,,", of the presidential

72

PK, J

W.P.itt . 6885 & 36qtl9 of 2O2S

Ordcr, appointments b.y transler from local cadrl; are pcrmitted,

subjcct to equitable sharing, ancl there is no prohib r on against such

appointments. It is further submirted that the relial :c placed b), the

respondents upon C].O.N,,ls.No. 12 dared 23.01.2OO9 ir also misplaced,

as the said ad hoc rules govent onll.tcachers rvot-I.t tg in local body

schools, and the,v clo no eovern thc posts in SCERT. v..hich posts are

held by the pcLitioncrs. l'hcrc[or-c, leantcd counsel t( - the pctitioncrs

once again pra]' this Court to sct asidc the impug: :l orders dated

29.11.2025 ernd O4. t2 2025, ancl ro direct the -3spondents

to

continue thc petitioners in the office o[ responde: No.3 with all

consequential benefi ts.

14. [n support of thcir casc, rcliancc has been .].rced upol-r thc

lollon'ing decisio.s or thc Ilon brc Apex court arrd thr' lecisions of the

Jharkhand I-ligh Court:

il Food Corporation of India u

IndustriesT

M/s. Kamadhe,'u Cattle Feed

ll) Naajgoti Coop. Group Housing Societg and. t thers u. Union

o;f India and othersg

iir) Vinod Kumq.r u. Stdte of Haryanas

iv) Secund.erabad. Club Etc. u. C.I.T.-V Etc.to

7 (1993) I SCC 7l

3 (1992) I SCC 477

e

AIR 201.1 SC 33

,,,

AIRONT_tNta 2023 S( 70,

-a-

13

1'K, J

w.P.No.36885 & 36889 oI2O25

v) S.N. Maity u. Union oJ Indial

t

vll Amrendra Kumar & Ors. u. Ranchi Regional Deuelopment

Authorit!2, and

vli) Birendra Kumar Shanna u. State of Jha.rkhanflta

15. This Court has taken note ol the rival submissions made by

lcarned counsel for the rcspectivc parties and perused the material on

record.

16. Admittedly, the pctitioners in Lhesc two writ petitions were

initially appointed as Sccondar,y Grade Teachers on 26.10.1998 and

14.08. 1998 respectivel!, in Zllla Parishad Schools at l(arimnagar and

Aditabad Districts, rcspectively, u.hich fall under local body

management, and rvere subsequently promoted as School Assistants

on 03.03.2006 on 20.IO.2OO2 under the same management.

Thereafter, upon considcring their ou,n requests, petitioner No.1 r,l,as

initially deputed ers Programme Officer in SCBRT vide Memo dated

2l.lO.2OlO, u,hilc petitioncr No.2 rvas deputed to work in thc

Adolescence Educattion Ccll of rcspondcnr No.3 vide procecdings

dated 26.O2.2OO7. Later, by vir[uc of G.O.Rt.No.813 dated

I 1.11.2011, petitioner No- 1 \'as posted as School Guidance

L'

2006 (3) AIR JHAR R 526

r:

2014 (,r) A,JR 459

rr

AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 1.10(r

14

PK, J

W.P lro .

-r385

& 368t19 ol2O2S

counselor, and vidc (].o.Rt.No.4(r2

datcd og.07.2cr( [ . pcLitioner No.2

,"r,as posted as Scier-lcc Su pervisor, both in rhe oll i, c of respondcnt

No.3. Hcrc it is relevalt to refer to the aforesa:c r rdcrs. and the

relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

(i) G.O.Rt.No.813 dated 1l.l l.20 11, in respect ot pctirir

"4. Govel nmen( after careful cxamination of the rr-ar

der-ldg 1o appoint br rransfnr Sm1. p l\ladlravr. Sclr,,

(Enghsh). u ho is ltrcsentl_r' rrorking orr dcplrtirtlon as .1 [

Officcr ar SCDI?'I , I{r,dcrabad lo rhe poar o[ School (I

Counsclor (School {ssistant) in th(: cxisting vacancr

I ll,dcrabacl with rhc conditioD that

.,Fair

Sharr. pr

implem"rrt,,,l. r.o all lor al urrirs arr- r.prcsl-lltcd lll

.

l

grving cqual oppor.tunitrcs to all Units of Appornrrnent

..

(ii) C.O.RL.No..162 darcd 08.07.20O8, in respcct oI pcrrrrl

" In lllc' circumstances reported b_v tlte Dircct{)l

Education. llyderabad in his letter 4rh reacl abovc. Cr

aftcr careful examination of the matter, hercbt, accor<l

1_

to tlre Dircclor of School Educariorr. llvdcrabad. 1o 1,,,:

Uma Rani, School Asst., Z.p.S.S. (Cirls). Rarnal. r

Mandamarrr Mandal, Adilabad District, prcsentl \, (

deputation in SCDRf in Adolcsccncc Edr-rcation. zr:

Supcwisor in thc office of the Director, SCEIIT.. HvrlcraL

exist ing vacancy. ''

rr:r No. l:

r, hercby

,\sststan t

,)gfaunmc

,rdance &

t SC IiRT,

r rrple is

proccss,

r,:r No.2:

r' Sclrool

. rrnment

'r mission

Srnt. A.

s hnapur,

<ing on

Science

rr l. in tlrc

17. From a barc reacling ol the abovc, it is clcar rhaL r hc petitioncrs,

\'vho were employces oi iocal body (Zilla parishad)

scf )ols have bcen

posted in the olflce of respondent No.3, \,hich i a statc-lcvel

institution as pcr thc prcsidential

Order- 1975, orr r l.air Share

Principle basis, and upon the strcngth of these orclers. Ihc petitioners

claim that their scrvices were no longer utilized on d I ).ltation basis,

-

15

PR, J

W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025

ralher they were converLed into regular appointments by way o[

transfer.

18. To substantiate their claim' the petitioncrs heavily relied upon

the Special Rulcs/Rules for the Andhra Pradesh School Educational

Subordinate Service (unihed service rules for teachers working in lhc

Government and Panchayat Raj tnstitutions), issued by the erstwhile

Government of Andhra Pradcsh undcr G'O'Ms'No 538 dated

20. 1 1.1998 as wcll as thc Spccial Iltrlcs for the Andhra Pradesh

School Educational Subordinatc Service issued subsequcntly vide

G.O.Ms.No.g6daLed2S.OT.2OO5,bothoIwhich,admittedly'included

a provision for transfer of local body school teachers to the state-level

institutions, such as SCFIRT However, tl-re aforesaid Rules issued

under G.O.Ms.No.538 were assailed before thc Division Bench of this

Court in M. Keso/t tlu (supra), iLnd Lhc Division Bench vide judgment

dated18.ll.2oo3hadsetasidethesaidRules.Thefollowingisthe

rclevant porLion of the said decision:

24.'I'herefore, from a readtng of the aforesaid provisions' it is clear that

thee<lucationalinstitutiorrs-urr<tertlrc|nanagcmentandcontrolofthe

Mandaf Praja Parishads and Zilla I'raja Parishads are trcated on

Jiff"*", pai thougll thcy are cxpcctcd to [ollow t-tre provisions of the

Act, ttut yet, their management aird control lies in.the halds of Mandal

pi"i. p.ri"t

"a"

and' Zlla Praja Paristrads as the case maybe. The

CoJ".,-r-",,, is obliged to relcase thc grant-in aid to the institutions

undcrthetocalauthoritiesinaccordance$,iththeprovisionsreferredto

above. Even when the Government takes over the institutions run by

the local authorities or Mandal Praja P:rrishads or Zllla Praja Parishads'

16

the teachers and other employees subject

employees of the Government and uice

Government rnstrtutions rvhen taken over

employees of such institutions become

Parishads sul)ject to their option.

PK, J

W I'.. . ( 885 &:36889 of 2025

to their ol)t c r becomt:

uersa also li in case

the loc.r

emplole,l

by

the

r rt horitY

ol tltc

Lhe

of

the

Tilla

25. Thereforc, a clear cut distinction ls being maint;1]r .tl

there. The

tcachers and other employees employed in the Educatro r Ll Irrstitutiorrs

maintained and controlled by the Z.P.Ps. and M.P.Ps. rtr€ rn a sepirrare

slot.

94. In a similar identical situation, the Supreme Courl hrLr

another case reported in V. Jagennaahq Rao v. Slote o/ 4 i

SCC 401, hekl thus:

o decrdc

. (20o l) 10

"13) Organisation of local catlrc (1) 1'hc State Oo!.r |nrent shall,

within a periocl of twelve months from the comnlen I r renL o[ thrs

order, organize classes of posts in the civil services o[. : r.d classes of

civil posts under the State into different local cad.(r irr clillerent

parts of the State to the extent, and in the mann- hereinafter

provided.

(2) The posts belonging to the category of Lou,er [)rvrsir I Clcrk, and

to each of the other categories equivalent to, or lo.er t r;tn thart of il

[-ou,er Divrsron Clerk, in each department in each I) s rrct shall I)e

organDed into a separate cadre.

DxpLanotion..*For the purposes of this sub-p.u. I

paragraph (1) of Paragraph 6, and sub-paragraph (l) ol

a category shall be deemed to be equivalent to or l()r r

[-o!r'er Division Clerk, if the rninimum of the scale (,[

I

belonging to that category or, where the post carrie,;

such fixed pay, is equal to or lower than the minimrrrt r

pa_v of a Lorver Drvision Clerk.

r irph. sub

),

tragr aph 8,

than thar of

rv of a post

:r lixerl pa1,

the sc.rle of

(3) 'l'he posts belonging to each non gazetted catcgor\

those refer-red to in sub paragraph (2), in each deparrr

zone shall be organised into a separate cadrc.

othcr tl)an

('rl t ir) eacll

{4)

'l'he posls belonging to each specified Gazetted crrt., (,n, ur caclr

depiirtment in each zone shall be organised rnto a sep.rr, r carlrc.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragr r

(4), the St.rte Government may, where it considers it er

1

do and with approval of the Centrat Government, org,rl

belonging to arly of the categories referred to ther

rhs f3) and

-:.lienr so to

x: the posts

r :1, ir) an\

1.,

PK, J

W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025

department, or a-ny cstablishment thercof, in t$'o or more continuous

zoncs into a single cadre.

(6)

(7) in organizing a separate cadre in rcspect of anl, category of posts

in any department for any part of t[]e State , nothing in this order

shall be deemed to prcvent the State GovcrnmcrtL from organizinB or

contlnuing more than onc cadre in respcct of such category in such

department for such part of the State,

(8) Where the Central Govcrnmcnt is satisfrcd that, it is not

practicable or expedient to organize local cadres urlder tl.tis

paragraph in respect of any non-gazetted catcBory o[ posts in any

department, it may, b,y notification, urake a declirratioll, to that effect

and on such declaration, thc provisions oI this paragraph shad rtot

apply to such categor) of posts.

4

5. htcal cadres and. trdnskr of persons'. (l) Enr:h part of the State,

for which a local cadre has been organiscd in rcspect of any category

of posts, shalt be a separate unit for purposcs of recruitment,

appointment, discharge, seniority, promotion :rnd transfcr, and such

other matters as may be specified by the StaLe Government, in

respcct of that cateSory o[ post.

(2) Nothing in this order shall prevent the Stale Govcrrltrent from

making provisions fo r:

(a) the transfer of a person from any local citdre to auy olficc or

establishment to which this ordcr does not apply, or uice-

uersa,

(b) the transfcr o[ a person from a locarl cadrc comprising posts tn

any office or establishmcnt excrcisiug tcrritorial jurisdiction

over a part o[ the State to an]' other l<x'al cadrc comprising

posts in such part, or uice-uersa; a,r<)

(c) the transfer of a pcrson from onc local cadre to arlother local

cadre where no qualified or suttable pcrsorl ls avarlable in the

lattcr cadre or whcre such transfcr is otherwisc considered

necessary in thc pubtic intcrest."

Whitc tracing the object of Articlc3Tl-Dof the Constitution of India, the

Suprcme Court observed thus:

" 1 1. The object o[ endcttng Afiicle 37 1'D appeus to be two-fold:

18

PK, J

WP Ab . ;,185 & 368E9 of 2L)2r

(l) To l)romote equal development of the backu,a; r

Slalc of Andhra Pradesh, so far as to siel

de\,lrlopment of the State as a whole.

lreas of the

l.e balanccd

(2) To provide equitable opportunities to different are.rs o[ the

Statc in the matter of education, employrne I an(l career

prospects in public service.

(12) This was observed to be so in Chief Justice of Anrln, t prulesh

v.

I-.V.A. Dikshttutu ((1979) 2 SCC 34 : AIR i979 sc t93).

t3. It is to be noted that para

5(1) of the presidential

Or((

,

rs rn terms

of Para. 3(3). the,reof. Pa_ra 3(3) postulates that each del)arr r,rnr in each

zone shall be orgarised into a separate cadre. parir 5( ) speaks ol

separate unit for purposes of recruitment, appointrneri dis<.tr:rrge,

seniority, prontotion and transfer and Such other ma e: :ts rna! lte

specified bY rhe State Government in respect of the cat(.1 r.,,, r,t posts

and each part ()f the State for which local cadre has becr rr.ganise<l in

respec-t of an\. Category of posts in required to have a sepa rLte unit lbr

the aloresai(l

I)urposes.

para

5(2) is in the nature of ,n cnablinB

provision which authorizes the State Government to make I r,visjons for

translerin certain specified circumstances. The present cl ! )ute relatcs

to Para 5(2)(cl. It speaks o[ a "transfer". Attempt ot the €rl

F ],lanrs is to

give enlarged rneaning to the expression to include promoi ( r rl aspects

It has been contended in that context that though piLra .)(l) treats

promotion and transfer separately, yet that distinction \J Uld not be

apphcable to c.rses covered by para

5(2). The contcntt) is clearlr

u n le na ble.'

Interpreting tlre words transfer in para

5(2)(c) of the presirler

i.rl C)rder,

the Supreme CoLrrt held that it does not take in the pronr()t c I the

Supreme Court observed in para

lg as follows:

"18. We find that Para 5(2) of the presidential

Orrl<r

transfer an(l not of promotion. It would be hazardous t.r

contention ol the appellants that promotion is inclrLr

expressiol ltansfFr' and no assislance can be ava l,.r

disturctiorr rnade in Par.a 5(1) of the Order. No provisions c

statute has ro be read in isolation. In fact, the statute lr. s

as a rvhole. .{ statllte is an edict of the Legislature. It ca r

tlrat lvithout any purpose the distinctio; was ma(le j.

betrveen tritDsler and promotion and such distinctirr

rntencled to l)e operative in

para

5(2).

The inrentiorr of the [-egislature is primarily to be gathers L from lhe

Ianguage used, rvhiclr means that attention should be irid as to

what has becn said as also to what has not been sai;. ,i( (

',iohtl.

Att

fj1a1.-va_cllyrniss

ioner of weatth Tax, Neu Oem, gOozi: ;,:c sr r ,

AIR 1997 SC I 165 aod Instttute of Chartered. Ai.Lrntrl, tl , ,,; htdict v.

;peaks of

r ccept the

ecl rn tlre

frorn the

' lvord II1 a

to bc reatd

()t be sit l(l

)ar.r

5( I

)

was llot

--

19

PK, J

W.P.No

j6885 & 36889 of 2025

Price Water House, 11997) 6 SCC 312 : AIR 1998 SC 74 As a

consequence a constructlon which rcquircs for its support additiorr

or substitution of words or which resorts for rejection of words zls

meaningless has to b€ avoided. As stated by the Priv)' Ootrncil in

Robert Wigram Crowford v. Richard Spoorter, 1846 (6) Moorc P(l l.

"We cannot ajd the Legislature's dcfective phrasing of an Act. lvc

cannot add or mend and, by construction make deficiencies u'hir:h

are left there". The aforesaid decision was referrecl to b1'this Court in

stote of Gujqrat v. Dilipbhai Na|hjibhai Palel,.JT 1998 (2) sC 253. It is

contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Acl rrnless

it is absolutety necessary to do so. (See Slock v. Frattk Jones (Tlttan)

Ltd., lgTA (i) All. ER 948 (l{L). Srmilarty, it is wrong arrd dangerous

to proceed by substituting some other words for words oI the statute.

(See Pinner v. Eueretl, 1969 (3) Att. ER 257. In othcr lvords, there

shoutd be no attempt to substitute or paraphrase of general

application. Attention shoutd be confined [o lvhitt is nccessarl for

deciding a particular case. Much trouble is madc br- substttutirtg

other phrases assumed to be equivalent, whicl't thetr ale reasonccl

from as if tlley were in the Act. In U4ion of lrtlia v. Deoki NtttLdarr

Aggarlaol, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 : AIR 1992 SC 96, it lvas observcd

that the Court cannot refrain the Legislature for thc very good reason

that it has no power to tegislate lt is incumbcr.lt on thc Court [o

avoid the construction if reasonably permissiblc on the language

which would render a part of thc statute devoid o[ an-t' nlcaning or

application. In the interpretation of statutes, the Courts always

pi""r-e that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for :r

purpose and the legislative intention is tllat every part of tlle statutc

should havc an effect."

99. Under those circumstances, we are o[ the considered view that

G.O.Ms. No. 538 is not sustainable in law and the samc is hablc to bc set

aside. So also the G,O.Ms. No. 505, so far as it seeks to eulbrac(: the posts

in Education Department for rvhich the local cadre has been orgitnized itr

G.O.Ms- No. 529, dated 14.5.1976 uiz., in respect of the Deput! lnspector

of Schools, Headmaster and Educational Officers, the posts of (iazetted

Hea.lmasters, and Head Mistresses, and also Cazelled Head Masters,

Headmistresses Grade-ll, in Government IIigtr Schools is declarcd as

illcgal and invalid."

19. Likewise, the Special Rules for Andhra Pradesh School

Educational Subordinate Scrvice issued under G.O.Ms No.96 datcd

25.07.2OO5, were also struck down by the Division l3ench of this

20

PK, J

W.P.l.io. j385 & 36889 of 202a

Court in P. Vemq Reddy (supra) vide order dated 28. !2.2OOT, holding

the treatment ol tcachers in Government and local rr ,rly (Man<lal zrncl

Zilla Parishad) Schools as a unified cadre, ancl a

.ommon

unit ol

appointment, ctc., il.s unconstitutional. The relevar L portion of the

said decision is extracted hereunder:

" 19.

^TIte

object oI organizing different local cadres for c flerent parls

of the State is clear from paragraphs

4 and S of the pres ( jntral Order.

Under Para 4(l) persons holding posts, required to bt: r ganizcd inlo

local ca(lres, rvere to be allotted to such cadres I I the State

Covernment in accordance with the principle and pror:ec l.e spectlied

in the l)residential Order. Under para

5(l) each part oI r r: Stzrte, lbr

rvhrch a local cadre has been organized i., ."sp.ct of an,,

.ittegories

oI

posts, shall be a separate unit for puipose" o[ 1:cruitmenr.

appornlmcnt, seniority, promotion, transfer erc. Once a lr c r cadre rvas

organized rrnder para

3(1) each part of the State, for rch such a

local cadre $:rs organized, was required to be treated I a separate

unit and it is onty from amongst persons allotted I ereto rvas

promotrons to be effected and their seniority determinr ( In vierv of

Para 5(l), a local cadre is a distinct and sepaiate unit anl lbr mattcrs

prescribed therein, persons who do not belong to the sa r ocal carlrr:

or those \'ho belong to other local cadres cannot form pt t thereol It

is lor tlus reason that, both rn S. prakqsha

Rao v. Co,n ntsstoner oJ

Comntercial 'ltlxes, (1990) 2 SCC 259 : AIR 1990 SC !)! : and in M.

Kesauulrr s cc-se (supra), the Supreme Court and the Dirisi ,rr tJench of

this Court held that a local cadre, once organized, cannct be meddled

with.

81. W.P. No. 17548 ot2006 filed by the Government o[t.

No. 17628 ot 20O6 fileil by the State Teacher Unions ar

arrd \l'.1,. Nos. 18666, t9459,23362 of 2O06 are allou cl

17051. t7o7a' and t677t of 2O06 are filed by teachen:

Government schools qLlestioning the orders tra-nsferrino I

l)arishad Scl,ools. Since the petirioners therein. teacher:

Goverrrrrrent S, hools. bel(,nB to a local cadre q,hich is a sr

for llrr' prrrpose o[ apporntment, seniority, promolion, rr

their transl'er to the services o[ a loca]

"riho.lty

which I.r r

and cannot be, organized lnto a local cadre is illegal. Cols,

ttrese three $ rit petitions are also allowed.

'. and W.1,.

dism issed

W.P. Nos.

,t orkrng rn

,m

to Zill.r

.r orking in

)irrate u nit

r r sfer elr._,

not [)een,

I uentlv all

.-

27

W.P.No.:1688r & 36889 of 2O2r

20. In thc above referred two judgments, it has categorically been

held that the integration of teachers rvorking in rccal bocries u,irh the

teachers rvorking in Government schools is unconstitutio.al. and r-he

samc lrras also afhrmed by the t{on,ble Apex Court,

21. Ultimately, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.12 datcd

23.01.2OO9, framing ad hoc servrce rulcs in rcspecr of thc local body

(Mandal Prajaparishad and Zrlla prajaparishad)

teachers. Horltver,

thcse ad hoc Rules do not contain any provision that authorizes

absorption o[ local body tcachers into state-lcvcl lnstitution. such as

SCERT, as a matter of right or permancnt absorption.

22. From the above, it is clear that b1, thc time thc petitioners s,ere

posted in the office of rcspondcnt No.3, the verv statutorv sollrces

under G.O.Ms.No.538 dared 20.11.199g and G.O.Ms.No.96 clirred

25.07.2OO5, r'hich could have been invoked to justify their posri.u as

regular appointment, were struck down by thc Division Benches this

Court on 18.09.2003 and 2g.O2.2OO7 respectively, i.e., much prior ro

Lhe issuance of G.O.Ms.No.g13 dated 11.11.20 11 and G.O.Ms.No.462

dated 08.O7.2OO8. No other enabling provision exrsts, in thc

subsequent Rules issued undcr G.O.Ms.No.l2 dated 23.O1.2009. lor

transfcr of local body school tcachers into SCIiRT. F-urther, from n

22

PK, .]

tV.P-,Vo i ti85 8; 36889 of 2025

bare perusal ol thc pctitioners' posting orders vidc l,.O.Ms.Nos.g13

and 162. rt is clear rlrat thcy erc postcd in SCtrRT i- implemcntzrtion

of the 'Fair Sh.re I)ri.ciplc', *,hich clearly ir-rdicat rs rotatiorl and

equitablc oppor tunit\/, but not pcrmanent absorpti( I . As such, thc

mcre usage o[ 'appointment b1, 1p2n"1"r, clause in ; r:titioner No.1,s

transfer G.O. also cannot supersede the absen,t(, ,tf a statutory

provision for rcgular appointment_ Hence, in thc rbscnce ol any

statutory enabling provision, the pctitioners can r c,t claim tl-reir

posting in officc o[ respondcnt No.3 as a regular on(. Thereforc, the

further conLcntro, ol the pctitioners that the respond: rts Jrave Irastily

issrred thc impr-rgncrl orders, cannot be countenancc 1, as thc sarnc

r'r,cre issucd in pursrrance ol thc earlier Governmc I Mr:mos clated

23.O1.2024 and 25.01.2024, and the subsequcrr Mcmo rlated

04.12.2025, ralifl ing the said orders also cannot bc ft,r r.rd fault u,ith.

23. In view o[ the abovc, this Court is of the consirlt r :d opinion that

thc petitioners' posrings in SCERT cannot be con:;tr red as regular

appointmcnts, sincc they tv cre uoid ab initio and cor r I ery to law. As

sucl-r, their colt[inuat.ion, rcgardless of the length of LLcir tenure, is

Iegally unsustainable and impcrmissiblc. At best, th. r postings can

be trcated as d cpu ta tion / tcnure-based arrangemcnLs.

23

PK, J

W.P No.36885 & 36889 of 2A2S

24. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been consistently holding that even

a prolongcd length of service does not convcrt a dcputation into

regular appointment, and the deputees would not acquire a right ro

be absorbed in the borrowing department mercly becau se they ltave

rendcred thcir services for several years. In p.K,

Bhdtnagar (supra),

thc Hon'ble Apex Court held that an employee, when on deputation,

cannol claim to bc a regular employee in the deputed organization or

place of rvork. 1'he tollowing is lhe relevant cxcerpt of thc sili.i

dccision

11. In ou.r oprnion, Respondent 1 cannot, by reason ol anv

atlrlude adop(ed b the Slate Covernment. (laim lo .on,,,,l-,a ,r,

scrvice rvith the appcllant. The records of thc case clcarlv shorr

that Respondent I ar all material trmes u,as." a"fri"i_"'rilitr., ,r,"

appcllant- Thc State Covernrrrcnt had senr nl,"pr"J."i f."

deputation to the appcllant and also passed the o.a.. of

rcpatriation on the basis that Respondent I rvas an .^oio1,." of

the State covernment. If the Srate Government d;";;" ;;;;" ..ry

otlter stand at this stage that \vould have to be a".ia.O-in tt.

proceedings other than these. For the purposes oi tflrc ."""

"r,,"have no hesitation in holding that Responient f *,." 1f," Stut.

uovernment's employcc and rvas sent on deputation to the

:I)p."-111",

Now rhar rhe reparriation order has 1r."" p."."a'fx tn"

Jratre,(,ovcrnmenl, Respondent I cannot clatm lo l_re irr sclnrrc

rrn Ule appellant.'l'he mere lact that he has spent several \ears

in sen,ice of the appelant wilt not alrer R"ilil;;;l;"

;;;il,,

from that of a dcputationist to.-1^regular emplovee lSee

'Siore

o7

3]r:,r-:l:111:.

"rnshllteez)

8 scc s?2 : rees a'cc ria,sr 5+t r r"

rrc clrcumstances ol thc case, thc appeal is allorred anci the

dccisiorl o[ the High Court is sct aside. TIc Starc Cor,.r.,-.r,t

"n.if

gite,cffecr ro.the orders passcd bv thc Statc C n"",-rr.",ri'""',,."

f i ,"

Dl Ur. appcuanl on lg_1.1994. l4 9 1994 and 2g I lg93

-a

24

PK, ,]

l,Y /'.No..J( I 15 & 36889 ol'2025

25- ln Phoni Bhusan Kundu (supra), the Hon'blc - >:x Court. hcld

as under

"8. In our oprnron. the ricrt exprcsscd bl, the CAT, ar

bl, the High CoLrrt. is con[ran' to the larv and is unsrr

The scopc and mcaning of the word 'deputation'in sen,i;

explaincd bl this Court in State of Punjab and others v. lq

and Others. mcans service outside the cadre or outsid,l t

departrnen[. that rs. rn anothcr department on a tempo-r

Aftcr thc cxpin of thc pcriod of dcputation, such an

reverts to his parcnt dcpartmcnt to occupv thc sarne

unless, irr rhe rnr.an,.r,hile. hc earnecl a prornotion in-t

departnrcnr as In'r rccrultntcnt rulcs. Thc deputee

becorlc a rcgul:rr cmplovec rn the borrowed servrce/C,:t

The depurccs licn on the post ir1 the parent departmcr.tt C

Deputation docs not resLrlt in absorption in th,--

dcpartmcnt / se n'i( c-

26. In view o[ thc abovc, sincc the petitioners'posti.r

of rcspondcnt No.3 arre not on rcgular basis, but .,r

tenure based arrangcments, the further contention ()1

that, having rcndered more than (14) and (17) yea

respcctively, in the oflicc o[ respondent No.3, they ].rrr

expcctation for continuation, also cannot be countenarr,

i uphcld

t iinable.

aw was

l,?r Sngh

( parent

ry basis.

'r n ployce

fosition

s parent

l,)es not

artment.

,lltlnues.

xrrrorvcd

9. Thc exPrcssron 'appoltltlnent on deputation" ant[ 'ransfer

on dcput:rtrou rn?r I)c cliflircnt. l)ut this docs not mea I t ]at any

vcstcd righL,.rotrld accruc lo respoltdcnt no. 1, Phirrit lhrLsan

Kundu, unlcss hc rs absorbcd in the I trrorvrng

departmc n t/ sen icc.

15. ln vicrr of thc aforesairi position, the impugned j ] Illment is

set asidc and thc appcal is allorved. Resultantll ().A. No.

35O/O1256 ol 2O1.1 preferrcrl by respondent nd. I, Pht.r i Bhusan

Kun<lu. till bc uc:lLcd as <lismisscd. Ilowcver. responl nt no. 1,

Phani llhusan l(r.Lndu. rlill contrnuc to get his pcnsio-r i; payable

undcr the \'B l)ensron RLrlcs.'

l,i in the olfice

3 deputation/

he petitione rs

s of serviccs,

(: a legitimate

(d-

iiffii*r',

I

PK, ,I

W.P.No.s6885 & 36869 ol 2O2S

27. Further, it is to be noted that deputation cannot be continued

indefinitely. As per G.O.(P).No. t0 dated 22.01. 1993, the period of

deputation is restricted to three years. extendable for a further period

of two years. Hou,ever, in the instant case, the petitioners have been

discharging their services in the office of respondent No.3 for over a

deceLdc, which is totally impermissible under law.

24. The othcr contention of the petitioners is thaL during

bifurcation, they werc allotted to the State of Telangana, and u,ere

postcd in the olfice of respondent No.3. However, from a perusal ol

the proceedings in Rc.No. 187

lF1-2 /2014 dated O 1.06.2014 and

Proc.Rc.No.I

/A/,SCERT/TS i20t4 d.aLed, 02.06.2Oi4, it is clear that

the said allotments and postings u.cre only provisionai in nature. ancl

there is a clear indication in the said proceedings that the flna.l

allocation of employees would be made at the appropriate times, as

per the guidclincs issued by rhc Government. Therefore, the aforesaid

contention of the petitioners also cannot be accepted. Further,

though the petitioners also relied upon certain Government orders,

viz., G.O.Ms.Nos.24l and 245, both dated 01 .06.2014, no material

has been placed berore this court to demonstrate their claim. As

such, this Court is not inclined to express an opinion on the same.

26

PK, J

W.P

^'o.

i985 & 36889 of2025

29. In the light ol thc abo'e made discussion, thr Cecisions relied

upon b1' thc r)ctitio.crs arc distinguishable .rr facts ancr are

inapplicable to llte prcsent case.

30. In vicvr, ol thc above, this Court does not hnd r ny infirmities in

the impugnccl rcpatriation and reliving orders daterl I,.4.I I .2025 and

29.11.2025, rcspcctivcly, and therefore, the writ pet [.ons arc clcvoid

of merit and :rrc liable to be dismisscd.

31 . Accordingly, thc Writ petitions

are dismissed

Misccllancous applications, it any, pendin: in these

.u,rit

petitions, shall stanrl closcd. No costs.

SD/. A.I;TEENIVASA REDDY

SI;STANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY/'

SECTION OFFICER

To

?ffi 33 Jiisi ?g?'#v' 8gs[''])'?'e #

r IPUCI

i ate of Telangana' at

1

2

for

Hvderabad. [OUT]

Triic CD CoPies2

PSK,

TKS

)---

HIGH COURT

DATED:2610312026

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.36885 AND 36889 of 20&

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS

WITHOUT COSTS

CC TODAY

51

eOF

a$

$s

t'(.

a{

F

d.

+

\

1')/J, + q.'

' ':\'

-.'-----'

L

b

r,Q'-

v,.-

j*t-,{'