Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 541 (AP)

N Jhansi v. K. Damayanthi

2022-06-14

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2022
JUDGMENT U.Durga Prasad Rao, J. - In W.P.No.26285/2010 the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of andhra Pradesh passed the following order dated 03.10.2018: 'accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents Nos.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption into grant-in-aid vacancies, if they were appointed in accordance with the rules and their appointments were approved by respondents Nos.1 and 2, by duly taking into account the orders passed in W.P.No.14482/2006 dated 14.2.2011 and W.P.No.20036/2003 dated 13.10.2013, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order'. (a) Now, the 1st petitioner filed the instant contempt case alleging that subsequent to the above order the petitioner and others made several oral representations and finally gave representation dated 31.10.2018 seeking implementation of the above order. However, no communication has been received from the respondent authorities and they have not complied with the order. The petitioner is aged 59 years and she will be retiring on 30.06.2019. The callousness of the respondents in absorbing her to the grant-in-aid vacancy causes much agony to her. Hence, the Contempt Case. 2. The 1st respondent filed counter contending that 1st petitioner and ten others were working as unaided Lecturers in the 3rd respondent college. Subsequent to the order dated 03.10.2018 in W.P.No.26285/2010, as per the factual reports furnished by the Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education, andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, the matter was re-examined keeping in view the order dated 03.10.2018. after careful examination of the matter, as per the rules in force vide Government Memo No.EHE01-CCEOMISC/24/2018-CE-HE dated 28.05.2019, speaking orders were passed rejecting the request of petitioner and ten others working in 3rd respondent college for regularization of their services from unaided service to grant-in-aid posts since they are not entitled for the same for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid speaking orders. It is submitted that in the order dated 03.10.2018 this Court directed to absorb the petitioner along with others in grant-in-aid vacancy. However, it is noted that the petitioner and others did not possess the requisite qualification to be eligible to the post of Lecturer. Further, their initial appointment was not approved by the respondents 1 & 2. Hence, their case was rejected by a speaking order. However, it is noted that the petitioner and others did not possess the requisite qualification to be eligible to the post of Lecturer. Further, their initial appointment was not approved by the respondents 1 & 2. Hence, their case was rejected by a speaking order. as such the respondents have scrupulously complied with the order dated 03.10.2018 in W.P.No.26285/2010. Hence, the contempt case may be dismissed. 3. The 2nd respondent filed counter opposing the Contempt Case as follows: (a) The petitioner in the present Contempt Case is one among the petitioners in W.P.No.26285/2010. She joined as unaided Lecturer in History on 18.09.1986 against unaided sections started after 01.03.1985 and she does not possess the requisite qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D. as per UGC regulations. (b) The Government vide Memo No.2043/CE.2/86-4 Education, dated 28.07.1986, and CCE's proceedings in Rc.No.3842/K2-4/1986 dated 18.08.1986 permitted the management of SDMS Kalasala, Vijayawada to start certain unaided courses from the academic Year 1986-87 subject to condition that there will be no additional financial commitment to Government and the petitioner in the present Contempt Case was selected and appointed as unaided Lecturer against the unaided sections started after 01.03.1985 duly following the selection procedure prescribed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.12 Education, dated 10.01.1992, with a clear direction that the posts pertaining to unaided sections / courses started after 01.03.1985 shall not be admitted to grant-in-aid as per the provisions of Section 3(b) of the a.P. Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-aid (Regulation) act, 1988 [act 22 of 1988]. The provision laid down in the act 22 of 1988 which is applicable in respect of the College/Colleges is also made applicable in respect of the Sections/courses i.e., no Sections / Courses started after 01.03.1985 even in the existing aided colleges shall be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid. (c) G.O.Ms.No.12 Education dated 10.01.1992 which was issued with a motive that to ensure that minimum standards of education are maintained in all educational institutions, does not confer any right to claim absorption. (d) according to the orders in W.P.No.26285/2010, the petitioner's services are to be considered for absorption into grant-in-aid post, provided they were appointed with reference to selection procedure and if such appointments were approved by the respondents. The management of the college never sent proposals for appointment as unaided Lecturers for approval, hence, the question of approval does not arise. (d) according to the orders in W.P.No.26285/2010, the petitioner's services are to be considered for absorption into grant-in-aid post, provided they were appointed with reference to selection procedure and if such appointments were approved by the respondents. The management of the college never sent proposals for appointment as unaided Lecturers for approval, hence, the question of approval does not arise. (e) While passing the orders, this Court referred the cases in W.P.No.14482/2006 filed by Smt. Ch.Parvathi Devi and W.P.No.20036/2003 filed by Phebe Sarah in whose favour the Hon'ble Court granted relief. The petitioner (G.Parvati Devi) is concerned, she sought directions to admit her into grant-in-aid as Junior Lecturer and her case pertains to Board of Intermediate Education, but the Commissioner of Collegiate Education has nothing to do with the absorption of Junior Lecturer. (f) The petitioner Phebe Sarah is concerned, she sought directions to admit her into grant-in-aid as Lecturer in Botany w.e.f. 01.02.2001. Her writ petition was allowed with a direction to admit her into grant-in-aid in the available aided vacancy of Botany. In W.P.No.20036/2003, the petitioner was appointed as unaided Lecturer on 21.08.1995 and the Principal, a.C. College, Guntur sent proposal on 22.01.2001 for her absorption. also that she was having requisite qualification of Ph.D and thus she was absorbed against the aided vacancy. However, in the instant case the management of the college never sent proposals for appointment as unaided Lecturers for approval. Hence, the question of approval does not arise. The present writ petitioner was appointed as unaided Lecturer against the unaided posts to teach the unaided Sections from 1986-87 which were not entitled for admission into grant-in-aid as per the said act. Further, the petitioner has no requisite qualification as per UGC Regulations. Hence, the orders in W.P.No.14482/2006 and W.P.No.20036/2003 are different from the present case. (g) Be that it may, pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 03.10.2018, a factual report was submitted to the Government for necessary orders. In turn, the Government after careful examination of the matter as per rules found the request of the petitioner not in accordance with rules and rejected. The rejection order is a speaking order and therefore, 2nd respondent did not violate the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 03.10.2018 in W.P.No.26285/2010. Hence, the Contempt Case may be dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed reply affidavits to the counters of the respondents 1 & 2. The rejection order is a speaking order and therefore, 2nd respondent did not violate the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 03.10.2018 in W.P.No.26285/2010. Hence, the Contempt Case may be dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed reply affidavits to the counters of the respondents 1 & 2. It is stated that the objections shown for rejection of petitioner's case to admit her into grant-in-aid are contrary to the orders of this Court. Hence, the respondents are liable for contempt. (a) The petitioner was appointed by the Five men Committee and duly selected by the representative of the Government. The petitioner possessed all the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in History. at the time of joining in the year 1986, the qualification required is Post Graduation and she has been working since the said date till her date of retirement i.e., 30.06.2019. It is submitted that even as per the material papers filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has been working in the aided post since 01.07.2006. The allegation that the petitioner does not have requisite qualifications as per the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 04.06.2019 is absolutely incorrect. (b) It is submitted that the 2nd respondent for the first time in the Contempt Case has taken up the plea that the petitioner has joined in unaided Lecturer post in History on 18.09.1986 and that she does not have requisite qualifications NET/SLET/Ph.D. as per UGC Regulations. The said plea was not taken in the writ petition. Be that it may, the qualification of Ph.D. was introduced by the University Grants Commission under the draft regulations in February 2018 and prior to that there was no such qualification prescribed. It is further submitted that as on the date of appointment of the petitioner in the year 1986, there was no such qualification prescribed. The 2nd respondent in order to exclude the petitioner took such a plea. (c) It is further submitted that according to the 2nd respondent, in view of Section 3(b) of the act 22 of 1988, no private college which was established after 1st March 1985 shall be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid. The 2nd respondent in order to exclude the petitioner took such a plea. (c) It is further submitted that according to the 2nd respondent, in view of Section 3(b) of the act 22 of 1988, no private college which was established after 1st March 1985 shall be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid. Such a contention is unwarranted for the reason that Sri Durga Malleshwara Siddartha Mahila Kalashala, Vijayawada was started in the academic Year 1983-84 and the same was admitted to grant-in-aid by the respondent authorities and now a contrary plea was taken that the petitioner's college is not entitled for grant-in-aid with an intent to circumvent the orders of this Court. (d) The further contention of 2nd respondent that the petitioner was appointed to the post of unaided Lecturer and not appointed by the 2nd respondent authority is false. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent who is the competent authority has acquired permission vide proceedings in Rc.No.2218/PCI-1/92 dated 13.07.1992 directing the college to fill up the unaided posts of Lecturers following the recruitment procedure as laid down in G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10.01.1992 and in pursuance of the said proceedings, the petitioner was subjected to the interview by Five men Committee appointed by the 2nd respondent authority on 13.02.1995 and selected the petitioner. Hence, the said contention is untenable. The further contention of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner was appointed in unaided post and there was no recommendation from the respondent college to propose the 2nd respondent is false. In fact, the Principal of SDMSM Kalasala, Vijayawada has been writing letters since 2006 till date relating to the unaided permanent lecturers who were appointed as per G.O.Ms.12 dated 10.01.1992. The Principal has also addressed a letter to 2nd respondent that they have no objection to absorb the 10 unaided vacancies in aided vacancies existing in Siddhartha Group of institutions. So, the contention that no recommendation letter was forwarded is not correct. 5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao and learned additional advocate General and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for the respondents. 6. all the learned counsel reiterated their respective pleadings in their arguments. So, the contention that no recommendation letter was forwarded is not correct. 5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao and learned additional advocate General and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for the respondents. 6. all the learned counsel reiterated their respective pleadings in their arguments. While it is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the respondents have grossly violated the order of this Court in considering the case of the petitioner for admitting her into grant-in-aid with the objections such as (i) the petitioner did not possess requisite qualifications i.e., NET/SLET/Ph.D. and that (ii) she was appointed purely as unaided Lecturer in the 4th respondent college, both of which are untenable reasons because at the time of her appointment in the year 1986, the qualification for becoming a Lecturer was only Post Graduation which condition she fulfilled and later, from 2006 she worked in the aided post till her retirement in the year 2019 and the objections which the respondents have taken in the Contempt petition were not putforth during the writ petition, in oppugnation, the argument of learned additional advocate General was that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D. and further, her initial appointment was only as an unaided Lecturer and therefore, her case was rightly rejected by the 2nd respondent and the orders of this Court were duly complied with and hence, the Contempt Case is not maintainable. 7. The points for consideration are: 1) Whether the rejection order in Rc.No.1080/admn.1 /2010-1 dated 04.06.2019 passed by 2nd respondent is factually and legally sustainable? 2) If Point No.1 is held negatively, whether the respondents are liable for contempt? 8. Points 1 & 2: Since points 1 and 2 are intertwined on factual and legal side, they are taken up together. I gave my anxious consideration to the respective contentions of parties. In W.P.No.26285/2010, the order dated 03.10.2018 was passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of andhra Pradesh as stated in the first para of this order. I gave my anxious consideration to the respective contentions of parties. In W.P.No.26285/2010, the order dated 03.10.2018 was passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of andhra Pradesh as stated in the first para of this order. While so, the 2nd respondent pursuant to the above said order issued the proceedings in Rc.No.1080/admn.1/2010-1 dated 04.06.2019 and rejected the case of the petitioner herein with the following observation: In view of the above, it is informed that the request of Smt. N.Jhansi, Un-aided Lecturer in History, SDMS Kalasala, Vijayawada for absorption into Grant-in aid post is not feasible and rejected on the following grounds. 1. She does not have the requisite qualifications i.e., NET/SLET/Ph.D 2. She was appointed purely un-aided Lecturer in the 4th respondent College. Therefore, the Secretary & Correspondent, Siddhartha Mahila Kalasala, Vijayawada is hereby directed to communicate these orders along with Government Memo dated 28.05.2019 to the individual with a proper acknowledgment and send the same to this office immediately to avoid further legal complications in this matter. The petitioner impugns the said rejection order on the ground that the reasons mentioned for refusal are factually and legally not sustainable. Hence, the validity and legality of the objections have to be scrutinized. 9. It should be noted the respondents questioned the very initial appointment of the petitioner contending that the petitioner was appointed as unaided Lecturer against unaided post to teach the unaided sections started after 1986-87 which were not entitled for admission into grant-in-aid as per Section 3(b) of the act 22 of 1988. Further, the management of the college never sent proposals for appointment as unaided Lecturers for approval, in the absence of which, the question of approval does not arise. The petitioner's case is that the 3rd respondent college was started during the academic Year 1983-84 and the same was admitted to grant-in-aid. Further, the management of the college never sent proposals for appointment as unaided Lecturers for approval, in the absence of which, the question of approval does not arise. The petitioner's case is that the 3rd respondent college was started during the academic Year 1983-84 and the same was admitted to grant-in-aid. The petitioner initially joined in the 3rd respondent college as part time History Lecturer on 18.09.1986 and worked as such till 29.06.1995 and thereafter pursuant to the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 13.07.1992 permitting the management of the 3rd respondent college to fill up 36 unaided posts of lecturers in different subjects including History as per the recruitment procedure laid down in G.O.Ms.No.12, the petitioner and some others attended the selection procedure conducted by the Five member Select Committee and the petitioner was thus appointed as unaided Lecturer w.e.f. 30.06.1995 and worked till retirement. Thus, it is the forcible argument of the petitioner that her appointment was in accordance with the procedure laid down as per G.O.Ms.No.12. The petitioner produced certain material papers along with her reply to the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent. a perusal of the copy of the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education, a.P., Hyderabd vide Rc.No.2218/PCI-1/92 dated 13.07.1992 would show that the Director of Collegiate Education has granted permission to the management of SDMS Mahila Kalasala, Vijayawada to fill up 36 unaided posts of lecturers in different subjects, one of which is History, by following the recruitment procedure laid down in G.O.Ms.No.12, Education dated 10.01.1992. It is stated that as the said course pertains to unaided sections / courses, started from 1986 onwards they shall not be admitted to grant-in-aid. Then a perusal of the copy of the document styled as 'Information regarding unaided permanent lecturers appointed as per G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10.01.1992' issued by the Principal of 3rd respondent shows that as against the subject History, the petitioner's name and particulars are mentioned to the effect that the petitioner is a M.a. and unaided Lecturer who worked as part time lecturer from 18.09.1986 to 29.06.1995 and thereafter appointed as per G.O.Ms.No.12, Education dated 10.01.1992 w.e.f. 30.06.1995 till date and her total service is 28 years. Thus, there is any amount of force in the contention of the petitioner that she and her ilk were selected by a Selection Committee as per the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.12. Thus, there is any amount of force in the contention of the petitioner that she and her ilk were selected by a Selection Committee as per the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.12. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that her initial appointment was not in accordance with governing rules and procedure cannot be countenanced. Consequently the petitioner's appointment cannot be termed either as illegal or a backdoor entry. (a) The next contention of the respondents seems to be that while granting permission to fill up the 36 unaided posts of Lecturers, the Director of Collegiate Education in his letter dated 13.07.1992, made it clear that those posts pertain to the unaided sections / courses started from 1986 onwards and therefore they shall not be admitted to grant-in-aid and therefore, the petitioner and others who were selected pursuant to the said permission cannot seek for admission into grant-in-aid. This argument is wholly unjust and illegal. It is true that in the letter dated 13.07.1992 while granting permission to the 3rd respondent to fill up 36 unaided posts of lecturers by following G.O.Ms.No.12, the Director of Collegiate Education has mentioned that since those posts pertain to the unaided sections / courses started from 1986 onwards, they shall not be admitted to grant-in-aid. It is the case of the petitioner that SDMS college was started from the academic Year 1983-84 and the same was admitted to grant-in-aid. That fact is not denied by the respondents. In that view, merely because some subjects as mentioned in the letter dated 13.07.1992 were started from 1986 onwards, it cannot be said that the teaching staff relating to those subjects cannot seek for admission into grant-in-aid as against the available grant-in-aid posts. So far as the petitioner is concerned, in her subject History, admittedly a vacant aided post is available which is discernible from the Memo No.EHEO1-CCEOMISC/24/2018-CE-HE dated 28.05.2019 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government, wherein the particulars of the different Lecturers including the petitioner were mentioned and the copy of the said Memo is filed by the 2nd respondent along with other material papers and enclosed to his counter. added to it, the Secretary and Correspondent of the Siddartha academy of General and Technical Education (4th respondent in the writ petition) in his letter dated 21.07.2011 addressed to the 2nd respondent stated that the petitioner herein requested to admit her into the available aided post which fell vacant consequent to the retirement of Smt. V.Indira, Lecturer in History on 30.06.2006 and therefore, the request of the petitioner may be considered. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner and others who were selected in the unaided posts in respect of different unaided subjects / courses cannot seek for admission into grant-in-aid is preposterous. (b) The next contention of the respondents seems to be that the petitioner had no requisite qualification that is NET/SLET/Ph.D.Strongly refuting the said objection, the petitioner would contend that as per the draft regulations of the University Grants Commission issued in February 2018, Ph.D. qualification was essential for the posts of Professor, assistant Professor, associate Professor, Principals etc. However, prior to that there was no such qualification prescribed. If such qualification was a must as contended, the Selection Committee would not have selected the petitioner and others in the year 1995. I find force in the said contention. The respondents have not produced any material to buttress their rejection order that the petitioner had no requisite qualification i.e., NET/SLET/Ph.D. Without producing any rule or regulation as to since when such qualification was brought forth, the respondents cannot reject the petitioner's case. 10. Thus, at the outset, the contentions raised by the respondents / contemnors in their counters are untenable and they are hereby rejected. The non-compliance of the order dated 03.10.2018 in W.P.No.26285/2010 has no valid reason and therefore, the non-compliance shall be treated as contemptuous. However, the Court is of the opinion that a final opportunity should be given to the respondents / contemnors to comply with the aforesaid order, failing which due legal action shall be initiated. 11. accordingly, this Contempt Case is allowed and the respondents / contemnors are directed to scrupulously comply with the order dated 03.10.2018 in W.P.No.26285/2010 and admit the petitioner in the grant-in-aid post and grant all consequential benefits which the petitioner is entitled to expeditiously by 28.06.2022, as she was retired, failing which the respondents / contemnors shall personally present in Court on 28.06.2022 and submit explanation for their failure to comply with the order. 12. 12. as a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.