Telangana High Court
Ponnam Madhavi vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION Nos.36885 and 36889 of 2025
Dated 26th March, 2026.
Between:
Ponnam Madhavi
... Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
School Education Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad, and others.
... Respondents
COMMON ORDER:
Since the lis in these writ petitions is one and the same, they
are analogously heard together and are taken up for disposal by way
of this common order.
2. These Writ Petitions are filed seeking to declare the repatriation
orders dated 24.11.2025 issued by respondent No.2, and the
consequential relieving order dated 29.11.2025, issued by respondent
No.3, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India, and consequently, to set aside the said
2
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
orders, with a further direction to the respondents to continue the
petitioners in service at the office of respondent No.3 with all
consequential service and monetary benefits.
3. Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel, and
Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing
on behalf of the respondents. For the purpose of convenience, the
petitioner in W.P.No.36885 of 2025 is hereinafter referred to as
petitioner No.1 and the petitioner in W.P.No.36889 of 2025 as
petitioner No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioner No.1
was initially appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 26.10.1998,
in the erstwhile Karimnagar District through the District Selection
Committee after due process of selection, and was later promoted as
School Assistant (English) on 03.03.2006. Petitioner No.2 was also
appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 14.08.1998 in the
erstwhile Adilabad District through the District Selection Committee
and was also promoted as School Assistant (Physical Science) on
20.10.2002. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 was deputed as
Program Officer in the office of respondent No.3 on terms of foreign
3
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
service, in accordance with G.O.(P).No.10 dated 22.10.1993, and she
joined duty as such on 21.10.2010. Thereafter, the Government
issued G.O.Rt.No.813 dated 11.11.2011, appointing her by way of
transfer as School Guidance and Counselor in the office of respondent
No.3, in accordance with the statutory rules issued under
G.O.Ms.No.538 dated 20.11.1998, which govern the appointments in
SCERT. Similarly, petitioner No.2 was initially deputed to the office of
respondent No.3 on 26.02.2007 but she was repatriated to her parent
unit vide proceedings dated 05.07.2008. Subsequently, she was also
appointed by way of transfer as Science Supervisor in the office of
respondent No.3 vide G.O.Rt.No.462 dated 08.07.2008, in accordance
with the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.538 dated 20.11.1998.
5. It is further submitted that consequent upon bifurcation of the
State on 01.06.2016, the posts were distributed among both the State
in 58:42 ratio, and the petitioners herein were allocated to the State of
Telangana, and their working units were shown as Director of SCERT,
Telangana State, and they have continued discharging their duties.
However, on 23.01.2024 and 25.01.2024, the Government issued
orders, instructing respondent No.3 to cancel certain deputations and
to repatriate the staff working under his control. Accordingly, after
thorough verification of records, respondent No.2 furnished a detailed
4
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
report to the Government vide letter dated 27.01.2024, clearly stating
that the petitioners were working in the office of respondent No.3 by
way of appointment by transfer in regular and existing vacancies, and
requested the Government to issue appropriate orders in the matter.
However, no orders have been passed by the Government so far.
6. It is further submitted that basing on the representations of
employees’ union, alleging that the petitioners are continuing in the
office of respondent No.3 despite the cancelation orders of the
Government, respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 25.01.2025 to
respondent No.2 for cancellation of the petitioners’ deputations.
Immediately, the petitioners submitted their representations to
respondent No.2 on 03.07.2025, clarifying that they are not working
on deputation but were appointed by way of transfer in the office of
respondent No.3, in accordance with the rules. However, respondent
No.2 issued the impugned proceedings dated 24.11.2025, directing
respondent No.3 to cancel the petitioners’ alleged deputations and to
repatriate them to their parent departments. Consequently,
respondent No.3 issued the impugned reliving orders, both dated
29.11.2025, instructing the petitioners to report before DEO,
Karimnagar and DEO, Adilabad, respectively.
5
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
7. It is further submitted that the posts of School Guidance and
Counselor and Science Supervisor in SCERT are categorized under
Class-I posts under the rules issue in G.O.Ms.No.538 dated
20.11.1998 and the said posts are required to be filled in by transfer
from School Assistants. As such, the petitioners’ appointments are
not deputations but regular appointment made by way of transfer in
accordance with the statutory rules. It is further submitted that the
petitioners’ were appointed by way of transfer by virtue of the
Government orders vide G.O.Rt.No.813 dated 11.11.2011 and
G.O.Rt.No.462 dated 08.07.2008, respectively, and neither
respondent No.2 nor respondent No.3 has the authority to cancel the
said Government orders. However, without waiting for the orders
from the Government and without verifying the records, the
respondents have issued the impugned orders in a high-handed and
arbitrary manner, erroneously treating the petitioners’ appointment
as deputation, and the same is a clear case of abuse of power and
insubordination. Thus, the impugned orders are highly illegal,
unjust, arbitrary, without application of mind, and contrary to the
aforesaid Rules. Therefore, learned counsel seek indulgence of this
Court to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 24.11.2025 and
consequential reliving orders dated 29.11.2025, with a direction to
6
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
the respondents to retain and continue the petitioners in the office of
respondent No.3.
8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader, appearing on
behalf of the respondents, submits that both the petitioners were
initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers in the year 1998 in
Mandal Praja Parishad School under Zilla Parishad Management in
the erstwhile Karimnagar and Adilabad Districts respectively, and
were later promoted as School Assistants in 2006 and 2002,
respectively. It is submitted that upon considering their requests, the
petitioners were posted in the office of respondent No.3 only on
deputation/terms of foreign service, in accordance with G.O.(P).No.10
dated 22.10.1993. Petitioner No.1 was deputed in the year 2010 as a
Program Officer, while, petitioner No.2, who was originally deputed in
the year 2007 to work in the Adolescence Education Cell, was
subsequently posted as Science Supervisor in the year 2008. It is
submitted that the Government issued orders vide G.O.Rt.No.813
dated 11.11.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.462 dated 08.07.2008, posting the
petitioners as School Guidance Counselor and Science Supervisor
respectively, subject to the condition of implementation of the Fair
Share Principles.
7
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
9. It is submitted that in the year 2024, respondent No.1 has
reviewed the deputations of all the employees and issued orders vide
Memos dated 23.01.2024 and 25.01.2024, directing cancellation and
repatriation of all deputations beyond three years’ period. As these
orders were never modified or withdrawn, in pursuance thereof,
respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings dated 24.11.2025,
canceling the deputation of the petitioners and consequential relieving
orders dated 04.12.2025, were issued by respondent No.3, which were
communicated to them through WhatsApp as the petitioners were
unavailable in the office of respondent No.3.
10. It is further submitted that the petitioners are governed under
the Unified Service Rules of Teachers working in Government and
Zilla Parishad Schools issued under G.O.Ms.No.538 dated
16.11.1998, which provides for recruitment by transfer on the basis
of a criteria that may be fixed by the Government from time to time.
However, the said Unified Service Rules were set aside by a Division
Bench of this Court in M. Kesavulu and others v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and others 1, and the matter was carried to the Hon’ble
Apex Court. As such, once the very source of the petitioners’ posting
was struck down, and it is affirmed that the services of teachers of
1 2003 (6) ALD 522 (DB)
8
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
Government schools and Zilla Parishad schools are distinct services
under the Presidential Order, the petitioners, being local body
employees, cannot claim a right to hold posts in a State-level
Government institution like SCERT or claim any relief basing on the
said G.O. It is further submitted that after the Unified Service Rules
in G.O.Ms.No.538 were struck down, the Government issued new
Rules under G.O.Ms.Nos.95 and 96, both dated 25.07.2005, which
were also struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in
Government of A.P. and others v. P. Vema Reddy and others 2,
which was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thereafter, the
Government had issued fresh ad hoc rules vide G.O.Ms.No.12 dated
23.01.2009, governing the teachers of local body schools, and there is
no provision under these rules for recruitment by transfer of School
Assistants to SCERT. Hence, there is presently no statutory provision
enabling permanent transfer of Zilla Parishad teachers into SCERT
service. It is further submitted that during the State reorganization in
2014, only the posts were provisionally allocated and not the
individuals, and the said allocation never converted their deputation
into regular absorption. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim for
continuation in the office of respondent No.3 as a matter of right.
2 2007 (4) ALD 209 (DB)
9
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petitions. Reliance has
been placed on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and
the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad:
i) Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam v. P.K.
Bhatnagar and others 3
ii) Nesar Ahmed and another v. State of Jharkhand and
others 4,
iii) Union of India v. Phani Bushan Kundu and others 5,
v) M. Kesavulu and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
others (referred supra), and;
vi) Government of A.P. and others v. P. Vema Reddy and others
(referred supra).
11. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
although the petitioners were initially appointed as Secondary Grade
Teachers in Zilla Parishad schools and were subsequently promoted
as School Assistants, they were posted in the office of respondent
No.3 against the sanctioned vacancies, and the said postings were not
stop-gap arrangements, but were made through formal Government
Orders. It is further submitted that during the reorganization of the
3 (2007) 14 SCC 498
4 (2014) 11 SCC 394
5 Civil Appeal No.22850 of 2024 dated 18.12.2024.
6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 117
10
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
State in 2014, the posts held by the petitioners in SCERT were
allocated to the State of Telangana vide proceedings dated 01.06.2014
and the petitioners were continued accordingly vide proceedings of
respondent No.3 dated 02.06.2014. As such, the contention of the
respondents that only the posts were allocated to the State of
Telangana and not the individuals is contrary to the orders issued by
the Government vide G.O.Ms.Nos.241 and 245 both dated
01.06.2014.
12. It is further submitted that the Government issued Memos
dated 23.01.2024 and 25.01.2024, directing cancellation of
deputations exceeding three years, and respondent No.2 sought a
categorical clarification about the petitioners vide letter dated
27.01.2024, but no information was furnished thereof. As such, the
assumption of the respondents that in the absence of any specific
orders, the Memos dated 23.01.2024 and 25.01.2024 would prevail is
wholly misleading and untenable. Further, the said Memos are also
inapplicable to the petitioners, since their posting in SCERT was not
on deputation but by way of appointment by transfer by virtue of
G.O.Ms.No.813 dated 11.11.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.462 dated
08.07.2008. It is submitted that the respondents themselves
addressed communications to the Government clarifying that the
11
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
petitioners’ were posted not on deputation basis but by transfers.
Further, without any orders of cancelling their original transfer
orders, respondent Nos.2 and 3 ought not to have treated the
petitioners as deputees and issued the present impugned orders. It is
further submitted that the impugned relieving orders were issued in a
highly arbitrary and hasty manner, without proper service, and even
during subsistence of the status quo orders of this Court. As such,
the subsequent Government Memo dated 04.12.2025 ratifying the
impugned action is also contrary to the interim protection granted by
this Court.
13. It is further submitted that the reliance placed upon the
applicability of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.538 dated 20.11.1998,
is misplaced, as the petitioners were promoted to the post of School
Assistants in pursuance of the rules issued by the Government in
G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 25.07.2005, which provides for appointment of
School Assistants to the posts in the SCERT, under in Rule-2, Class-l,
Category 19 to 21 therein. Further, para 5(2)(b) of the Presidential
Order-2018, provides for transfer or appointment by transfer of a
person from any local cadre to any office or establishment to which
the said order does not apply. As such, since SCERT, being a State-
level institution, is excluded from the purview of the Presidential
12
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
Order, appointments by transfer from local cadres are permitted,
subject to equitable sharing, and there is no prohibition against such
appointments. It is further submitted that the reliance placed by the
respondents upon G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 23.01.2009 is also misplaced,
as the said ad hoc rules govern only teachers working in local body
schools, and they do no govern the posts in SCERT, which posts are
held by the petitioners. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners
once again pray this Court to set aside the impugned orders dated
29.11.2025 and 04.12.2025, and to direct the respondents to
continue the petitioners in the office of respondent No.3 with all
consequential benefits.
14. In support of their case, reliance has been placed upon the
following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the decisions of the
Jharkhand High Court:
i) Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed
Industries 7
ii) Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society and others v. Union
of India and others 8
iii) Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana 9
iv) Secunderabad Club Etc. v. C.I.T.-V Etc. 10
7 (1993) 1 SCC 71
8 (1992) 4 SCC 477
9 AIR 2014 SC 33
10 AIRONLINE 2023 SC 702
13
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
vi) Amrendra Kumar & Ors. v. Ranchi Regional Development
Authority 12, and
vii) Birendra Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand 13
15. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on
record.
16. Admittedly, the petitioners in these two writ petitions were
initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers on 26.10.1998 and
14.08.1998 respectively, in Zilla Parishad Schools at Karimnagar and
Adilabad Districts, respectively, which fall under local body
management, and were subsequently promoted as School Assistants
on 03.03.2006 on 20.10.2002 under the same management.
Thereafter, upon considering their own requests, petitioner No.1 was
initially deputed as Programme Officer in SCERT vide Memo dated
21.10.2010, while petitioner No.2 was deputed to work in the
Adolescence Education Cell of respondent No.3 vide proceedings
dated 26.02.2007. Later, by virtue of G.O.Rt.No.813 dated
11.11.2011, petitioner No.1 was posted as School Guidance
11 2006 (3) AIR JHAR R 526
12 2014 (4) AJR 459
13 AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 1406
14
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
Counselor, and vide G.O.Rt.No.462 dated 08.07.2008, petitioner No.2
was posted as Science Supervisor, both in the office of respondent
No.3. Here it is relevant to refer to the aforesaid orders, and the
relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
(i) G.O.Rt.No.813 dated 11.11.2011, in respect of petitioner No.1:
“4. Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby
decide to appoint by transfer Smt. P. Madhavi, School Assistant
(English), who is presently working on deputation as a Programme
Officer at SCERT, Hyderabad to the post of School Guidance &
Counselor (School Assistant) in the existing vacancy at SCERT,
Hyderabad with the condition that “Fair Share Principle” is
implemented, i.e. all local units are represented in the process,
giving equal opportunities to all Units of Appointment.”
(ii) G.O.Rt.No.462 dated 08.07.2008, in respect of petitioner No.2:
” In the circumstances reported by the Director of School
Education, Hyderabad in his letter 4th read above, Government
after careful examination of the matter, hereby accord permission
to the Director of School Education, Hyderabad, to post Smt. A.
Uma Rani, School Asst., Z.P.S.S. (Girls), Ramakrishnapur,
Mandamarri Mandal, Adilabad District, presently working on
deputation in SCERT in Adolescence Education, as Science
Supervisor in the office of the Director, SCERT., Hyderabad, in the
existing vacancy.”
17. From a bare reading of the above, it is clear that the petitioners,
who were employees of local body (Zilla Parishad) schools have been
posted in the office of respondent No.3, which is a state-level
institution as per the Presidential Order-1975, on a Fair Share
Principle basis, and upon the strength of these orders, the petitioners
claim that their services were no longer utilized on deputation basis,
15
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
rather they were converted into regular appointments by way of
transfer.
18. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners heavily relied upon
the Special Rules/Rules for the Andhra Pradesh School Educational
Subordinate Service (unified service rules for teachers working in the
Government and Panchayat Raj Institutions), issued by the erstwhile
Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O.Ms.No.538 dated
20.11.1998 as well as the Special Rules for the Andhra Pradesh
School Educational Subordinate Service issued subsequently vide
G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 25.07.2005, both of which, admittedly, included
a provision for transfer of local body school teachers to the state-level
institutions, such as SCERT. However, the aforesaid Rules issued
under G.O.Ms.No.538 were assailed before the Division Bench of this
Court in M. Kesavulu (supra), and the Division Bench vide judgment
dated 18.11.2003 had set aside the said Rules. The following is the
relevant portion of the said decision:
24. Therefore, from a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that
the educational institutions under the management and control of the
Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads are treated on
different par though they are expected to follow the provisions of the
Act, but yet, their management and control lies in the hands of Mandal
Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads as the case maybe. The
Government is obliged to release the grant-in-aid to the institutions
under the local authorities in accordance with the provisions referred to
above. Even when the Government takes over the institutions run by
the local authorities or Mandal Praja Parishads or Zilla Praja Parishads,
16
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025the teachers and other employees subject to their option become the
employees of the Government and vice versa also viz., in case of
Government institutions when taken over by the local authority, the
employees of such institutions become the employees of the Zilla
Parishads subject to their option.
25. Therefore, a clear cut distinction is being maintained there. The
teachers and other employees employed in the Educational Institutions
maintained and controlled by the Z.P.Ps. and M.P.Ps. are in a separate
slot.
…
94. In a similar identical situation, the Supreme Court had to decide
another case reported in V. Jagannaaha Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 10
SCC 401, held thus:
“(3) Organisation of local cadre – (1) The State Government shall,
within a period of twelve months from the commencement of this
order, organize classes of posts in the civil services of, and classes of
civil posts under the State into different local cadres for different
parts of the State to the extent, and in the manner, hereinafter
provided.
(2) The posts belonging to the category of Lower Division Clerk, and
to each of the other categories equivalent to, or lower than that of a
Lower Division Clerk, in each department in each District shall be
organized into a separate cadre.
Explanation:–For the purposes of this sub-paragraph, sub-
paragraph (1) of Paragraph 6, and sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 8,
a category shall be deemed to be equivalent to or lower than that of
Lower Division Clerk, if the minimum of the scale of pay of a post
belonging to that category or, where the post carries a fixed pay,
such fixed pay, is equal to or lower than the minimum of the scale of
pay of a Lower Division Clerk.
(3) The posts belonging to each non-gazetted category, other than
those referred to in sub-paragraph (2), in each department in each
zone shall be organised into a separate cadre.
(4) The posts belonging to each specified Gazetted category in each
department in each zone shall be organised into a separate cadre.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraphs (3) and
(4), the State Government may, where it considers it expedient so to
do and with approval of the Central Government, organize the posts
belonging to any of the categories referred to therein, in any
17
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
department, or any establishment thereof, in two or more continuous
zones into a single cadre.
(6)………………….
(7) in organizing a separate cadre in respect of any category of posts
in any department for any part of the State, nothing in this order
shall be deemed to prevent the State Government from organizing or
continuing more than one cadre in respect of such category in such
department for such part of the State.
(8) Where the Central Government is satisfied that, it is not
practicable or expedient to organize local cadres under this
paragraph in respect of any non-gazetted category of posts in any
department, it may, by notification, make a declaration, to that effect
and on such declaration, the provisions of this paragraph shad not
apply to such category of posts.
4……………………………….
5. Local cadres and transfer of persons:–(1) Each part of the State,
for which a local cadre has been organised in respect of any category
of posts, shall be a separate unit for purposes of recruitment,
appointment, discharge, seniority, promotion and transfer, and such
other matters as may be specified by the State Government, in
respect of that category of post.
(2) Nothing in this order shall prevent the State Government from
making provisions for:
(a) the transfer of a person from any local cadre to any office or
establishment to which this order does not apply, or vice-
versa;
(b) the transfer of a person from a local cadre comprising posts in
any office or establishment exercising territorial jurisdiction
over a part of the State to any other local cadre comprising
posts in such part, or vice-versa; and
(c) the transfer of a person from one local cadre to another local
cadre where no qualified or suitable person is available in the
latter cadre or where such transfer is otherwise considered
necessary in the public interest.”
While tracing the object of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India, the
Supreme Court observed thus:
“11. The object of enacting Article 371-D appears to be two-fold:
18
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025(1) To promote equal development of the backward areas of the
State of Andhra Pradesh, so far as to secure balanced
development of the State as a whole.
(2) To provide equitable opportunities to different areas of the
State in the matter of education, employment and career
prospects in public service.
(12) This was observed to be so in Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v.
L.V.A. Dikshitulu ((1979) 2 SCC 34 : AIR 1979 SC 193).
13. It is to be noted that Para 5(1) of the Presidential Order is in terms
of Para 3(3) thereof. Para 3(3) postulates that each department in each
zone shall be organised into a separate cadre. Para 5(1) speaks of
separate unit for purposes of recruitment, appointment, discharge,
seniority, promotion and transfer and such other matters as may be
specified by the State Government in respect of the category of posts
and each part of the State for which local cadre has been organised in
respect of any category of posts in required to have a separate unit for
the aforesaid purposes. Para 5(2) is in the nature of an enabling
provision which authorizes the State Government to make provisions for
transfer in certain specified circumstances. The present dispute relates
to Para 5(2)(c). It speaks of a “transfer”. Attempt of the appellants is to
give enlarged meaning to the expression to include promotional aspects.
It has been contended in that context that though Para 5(1) treats
promotion and transfer separately, yet that distinction would not be
applicable to cases covered by Para 5(2). The contention is clearly
untenable.”
Interpreting the words transfer in Para 5(2)(c) of the Presidential Order,
the Supreme Court held that it does not take in the promotion, the
Supreme Court observed in Para 18 as follows:
“18. We find that Para 5(2) of the Presidential Order speaks of
transfer and not of promotion. It would be hazardous to accept the
contention of the appellants that promotion is included in the
expression ‘transfer’ and no assistance can be availed from the
distinction made in Para 5(1) of the Order. No provisions or word in a
statute has to be read in isolation. In fact, the statute has to be read
as a whole. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. It cannot be said
that without any purpose the distinction was made in Para 5(1)
between transfer and promotion and such distinction was not
intended to be operative in Para 5(2).
The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the
language used, which means that attention should be paid as to
what has been said as also to what has not been said. See Mohd. Ali
Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, New Delhi, (1997) 3 SCC 511 :
AIR 1997 SC 1165 and Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v.
19
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025Price Water House, (1997) 6 SCC 312 : AIR 1998 SC 74. As a
consequence a construction which requires for its support addition
or substitution of words or which resorts for rejection of words as
meaningless has to be avoided. As stated by the Privy Council in
Robert Wigram Crawford v. Richard Spooner, 1846 (6) Moore PC 1.
“We cannot aid the Legislature’s defective phrasing of an Act, we
cannot add or mend and, by construction make deficiencies which
are left there”. The aforesaid decision was referred to by this Court in
State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel, JT 1998 (2) SC 253. It is
contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless
it is absolutely necessary to do so. (See Stock v. Frank Jones (Tiptan)
Ltd., 1978 (1) All. ER 948 (HL). Similarly, it is wrong and dangerous
to proceed by substituting some other words for words of the statute.
(See Pinner v. Everett, 1969 (3) All. ER 257. In other words, there
should be no attempt to substitute or paraphrase of general
application. Attention should be confined to what is necessary for
deciding a particular case. Much trouble is made by substituting
other phrases assumed to be equivalent, which then are reasoned
from as if they were in the Act. In Union of India v. Deoki Nandan
Aggarwal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 : AIR 1992 SC 96, it was observed
that the Court cannot refrain the Legislature for the very good reason
that it has no power to legislate. It is incumbent on the Court to
avoid the construction if reasonably permissible on the language
which would render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning or
application. In the interpretation of statutes, the Courts always
presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a
purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute
should have an effect.”
…
99. Under those circumstances, we are of the considered view that
G.O.Ms. No. 538 is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set
aside. So also the G.O.Ms. No. 505, so far as it seeks to embrace the posts
in Education Department for which the local cadre has been organized in
G.O.Ms. No. 529, dated 14.5.1976 viz., in respect of the Deputy Inspector
of Schools, Headmaster and Educational Officers, the posts of Gazetted
Headmasters, and Head Mistresses, and also Gazetted Head Masters,
Headmistresses Grade-II, in Government High Schools is declared as
illegal and invalid.”
19. Likewise, the Special Rules for Andhra Pradesh School
Educational Subordinate Service issued under G.O.Ms.No.96 dated
25.07.2005, were also struck down by the Division Bench of this
20
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
Court in P. Vema Reddy (supra) vide order dated 28.02.2007, holding
the treatment of teachers in Government and local body (Mandal and
Zilla Parishad) Schools as a unified cadre, and a common unit of
appointment, etc., as unconstitutional. The relevant portion of the
said decision is extracted hereunder:
“19. The object of organizing different local cadres for different parts
of the State is clear from Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Presidential Order.
Under Para 4(1) persons holding posts, required to be organized into
local cadres, were to be allotted to such cadres by the State
Government in accordance with the principle and procedure specified
in the Presidential Order. Under Para 5(1) each part of the State, for
which a local cadre has been organized in respect of any categories of
posts, shall be a separate unit for purposes of recruitment,
appointment, seniority, promotion, transfer etc. Once a local cadre was
organized under Para 3(1) each part of the State, for which such a
local cadre was organized, was required to be treated as a separate
unit and it is only from amongst persons allotted thereto was
promotions to be effected and their seniority determined. In view of
Para 5(1), a local cadre is a distinct and separate unit and, for matters
prescribed therein, persons who do not belong to the said local cadre
or those who belong to other local cadres cannot form part thereof. It
is for this reason that, both in S. Prakasha Rao v. Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, (1990) 2 SCC 259 : AIR 1990 SC 997, and in M.
Kesavulu‘s case (supra), the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of
this Court held that a local cadre, once organized, cannot be meddled
with.
..
81. W.P. No. 17548 of 2006 filed by the Government of A.P. and W.P.
No. 17628 of 2006 filed by the State Teacher Unions are dismissed
and W.P. Nos. 18666, 19459, 23362 of 2006 are allowed. W.P. Nos.
17051, 17076 and 16771 of 2006 are filed by teachers working in
Government schools questioning the orders transferring them to Zilla
Parishad Schools. Since the petitioners therein, teachers working in
Government Schools, belong to a local cadre which is a separate unit
for the purpose of appointment, seniority, promotion, transfer etc.,
their transfer to the services of a local authority which has not been,
and cannot be, organized into a local cadre is illegal. Consequently all
these three writ petitions are also allowed.”
21
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
20. In the above referred two judgments, it has categorically been
held that the integration of teachers working in local bodies with the
teachers working in Government schools is unconstitutional, and the
same was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
21. Ultimately, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.12 dated
23.01.2009, framing ad hoc service rules in respect of the local body
(Mandal Prajaparishad and Zilla Prajaparishad) teachers. However,
these ad hoc Rules do not contain any provision that authorizes
absorption of local body teachers into state-level institution, such as
SCERT, as a matter of right or permanent absorption.
22. From the above, it is clear that by the time the petitioners were
posted in the office of respondent No.3, the very statutory sources
under G.O.Ms.No.538 dated 20.11.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.96 dated
25.07.2005, which could have been invoked to justify their posting as
regular appointment, were struck down by the Division Benches this
Court on 18.09.2003 and 28.02.2007 respectively, i.e., much prior to
the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.813 dated 11.11.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.462
dated 08.07.2008. No other enabling provision exists, in the
subsequent Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 23.01.2009, for
transfer of local body school teachers into SCERT. Further, from a
22
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
bare perusal of the petitioners’ posting orders vide G.O.Ms.Nos.813
and 462, it is clear that they were posted in SCERT in implementation
of the ‘Fair Share Principle’, which clearly indicates rotation and
equitable opportunity, but not permanent absorption. As such, the
mere usage of ‘appointment by transfer’ clause in petitioner No.1’s
transfer G.O. also cannot supersede the absence of a statutory
provision for regular appointment. Hence, in the absence of any
statutory enabling provision, the petitioners cannot claim their
posting in office of respondent No.3 as a regular one. Therefore, the
further contention of the petitioners that the respondents have hastily
issued the impugned orders, cannot be countenanced, as the same
were issued in pursuance of the earlier Government Memos dated
23.01.2024 and 25.01.2024, and the subsequent Memo dated
04.12.2025, ratifying the said orders also cannot be found fault with.
23. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the petitioners’ postings in SCERT cannot be construed as regular
appointments, since they were void ab initio and contrary to law. As
such, their continuation, regardless of the length of their tenure, is
legally unsustainable and impermissible. At best, their postings can
be treated as deputation/tenure-based arrangements.
23
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
24. The Hon’ble Apex Court has been consistently holding that even
a prolonged length of service does not convert a deputation into
regular appointment, and the deputees would not acquire a right to
be absorbed in the borrowing department merely because they have
rendered their services for several years. In P.K. Bhatnagar (supra),
the Hon’ble Apex Court held that an employee, when on deputation,
cannot claim to be a regular employee in the deputed organization or
place of work. The following is the relevant excerpt of the said
decision.
11. In our opinion, Respondent 1 cannot, by reason of any
attitude adopted by the State Government, claim to continue in
service with the appellant. The records of the case clearly show
that Respondent 1 at all material times was on deputation with the
appellant. The State Government had sent Respondent 1 on
deputation to the appellant and also passed the order of
repatriation on the basis that Respondent 1 was an employee of
the State Government. If the State Government desires to take any
other stand at this stage that would have to be decided in the
proceedings other than these. For the purposes of this case we
have no hesitation in holding that Respondent 1 was the State
Government’s employee and was sent on deputation to the
appellant. Now that the repatriation order has been passed by the
State Government, Respondent 1 cannot claim to be in service
with the appellant. The mere fact that he has spent several years
in service of the appellant will not alter Respondent 1’s position
from that of a deputationist to a regular employee. (See State of
Punjab v. Inder Singh [(1997) 8 SCC 372 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 34] .) In
the circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed and the
decision of the High Court is set aside. The State Government shall
give effect to the orders passed by the State Government as well as
by the appellant on 18-1-1994, 14-9-1994 and 29-1-1993.
24
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
25. In Phani Bhusan Kundu (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held
as under:
“8. In our opinion, the view expressed by the CAT, and upheld
by the High Court, is contrary to the law and is unsustainable.
The scope and meaning of the word ‘deputation’ in service law was
explained by this Court in State of Punjab and others v. Inder Singh
and Others, means service outside the cadre or outside the parent
department, that is, in another department on a temporary basis.
After the expiry of the period of deputation, such an employee
reverts to his parent department to occupy the same position
unless, in the meanwhile, he earned a promotion in his parent
department as per recruitment rules. The deputee does not
become a regular employee in the borrowed service/department.
The deputees lien on the post in the parent department continues.
Deputation does not result in absorption in the borrowed
department/service.
9. The expression “appointment on deputation” and “transfer
on deputation” may be different, but this does not mean that any
vested right would accrue to respondent no. 1, Phani Bhusan
Kundu, unless he is absorbed in the borrowing
department/service.
…
15. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned judgment is
set aside and the appeal is allowed. Resultantly, O.A. No.
350/01256 of 2014 preferred by respondent no. 1, Phani Bhusan
Kundu, will be treated as dismissed. However, respondent no. 1,
Phani Bhusan Kundu, will continue to get his pension as payable
under the WB Pension Rules.”
26. In view of the above, since the petitioners’ postings in the office
of respondent No.3 are not on regular basis, but are deputation/
tenure based arrangements, the further contention of the petitioners
that, having rendered more than (14) and (17) years of services,
respectively, in the office of respondent No.3, they have a legitimate
expectation for continuation, also cannot be countenanced.
25
PK, J
W.P.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
27. Further, it is to be noted that deputation cannot be continued
indefinitely. As per G.O.(P).No.10 dated 22.01.1993, the period of
deputation is restricted to three years, extendable for a further period
of two years. However, in the instant case, the petitioners have been
discharging their services in the office of respondent No.3 for over a
decade, which is totally impermissible under law.
28. The other contention of the petitioners is that during
bifurcation, they were allotted to the State of Telangana, and were
posted in the office of respondent No.3. However, from a perusal of
the proceedings in Rc.No.187/F1-2/2014 dated 01.06.2014 and
Proc.Rc.No.1/A/SCERT/TS/2014 dated 02.06.2014, it is clear that
the said allotments and postings were only provisional in nature, and
there is a clear indication in the said proceedings that the final
allocation of employees would be made at the appropriate times, as
per the guidelines issued by the 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.241 and 245, both dated 01.06.2014, no material
has been placed before 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.No.36885 & 36889 of 2025
29. In the light of the above made discussion, the decisions relied
upon by the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and are
inapplicable to the present case.
30. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmities in
the impugned repatriation and reliving orders dated 24.11.2025 and
29.11.2025, respectively, and therefore, the writ petitions are devoid
of merit and are liable to be dismissed.
31. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ
petitions, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________
JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
Date: 26.03.2026.
Note: Issue C.C. by 28.03.2026.
B/o.
GSP
