Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1288 (AP)

S. Kalahasti v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2014-10-16

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, L.N.REDDY

body2014
Judgment L.N. Reddy, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions is filed challenging the order, dated 26.7.2005, through which the University informed the petitioners that their services, as Part Time Lecturers, have been terminated. The petitioners were engaged on part time basis, in the subjects of Physics, Geology and Sociology, respectively, by the Kakatiya University. They pursued a long drawn litigation, in the context of regularisation of their services. The writ petitions filed by them were allowed. The writ appeal filed against the same by the University was dismissed, and ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to this Court. In WA No. 764 of 1998 and batch, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order, dated 11.9.2002, directing the University to take up the regular selection process. The petitioners herein and other persons, who figured as parties therein, were extended the benefit of relaxation of age to the extent it was needed. Thereafter, the University issued a notification, dated 10.10.2003, for various posts including those in the departments in which the petitioners were working as Part Time Lecturers. The petitioners submitted their applications and were also interviewed in June, 2005. However, they were not selected by the Selection Committee. Once the regular selections were made, the University intended to discontinue the lecturers appointed on part time and contractual basis. It is in this context that the impugned order dated 26.7.2005 was passed informing the petitioners that their services stand terminated. 2. The petitioners contend that the University was under obligation to notify 135 vacancies in all, whereas the notification was issued for only 35 vacancies, and thereby, their chances of being selected were totally diminished. The University has filed a counter-affidavit opposing the writ petitions. According to them, every step in the process of selection was taken strictly in accordance with the orders passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They also submit that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioners did not challenge the selection of the successful candidates. The plea of estoppel is also raised. 3. Heard Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the long drawn litigation in the context of pursuit of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. The plea of estoppel is also raised. 3. Heard Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the long drawn litigation in the context of pursuit of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. Though they were successful at one stage, ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to this Court and that led to the passing of orders in WA No. 764 of 1998 and batch. The direction issued therein was to the effect that the University shall forthwith take up the selection process and wherever necessary lecturers, who were working on part time or contractual basis, must be extended the benefit of relaxation of age limit. Though with some delay, the notification was published and the petitioners submitted their applications. In case the petitioners found that the notification is defective, in any manner, or contrary to the orders passed or observations made by the Supreme Court, or this Court; they were supposed to institute proceedings at the appropriate stage. Once they submitted applications and participated in the interview, without any demur, they cannot be heard to complain about the selection process, when it emerged that they have not been selected. Further, if the petitioners were of the view that the selection of candidates by the University was defective or contrary to law, they were supposed to challenge the orders of selection, duly impleading the successful candidates. We do not find any basis to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ petitions shall also stand disposed of.