Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 772 (AP)

D. Yedukondalu v. Govt. of A. P.

2022-08-18

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2022
JUDGMENT Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the petitioners in to grant-in-aid post with effect from the date of availability of posts/from the date of their appointment with all consequential benefits on par with several other similarly placed persons in various colleges across the state and to continue them in such manner till their retirement by providing all service benefits for which they are entitled to by holding the action of the Government in indulging in faulty/defective policy decision and ignoring the interests of the students community as well as the teaching staff with meager salaries and ignoring their rights as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, the same are heard and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader, Higher Education for the respondents. 4. The facts in brief are as follows: The respondents issued notifications respectively calling for applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Lecturers (un-aided). The petitioners are eligible for the said posts. Subsequently the petitioners participated in the selection process and the Selection Committee selected them as lecturers in an unaided post. Thereafter the petitioners started working as unaided lecturers in the respective colleges. The petitioners have been requesting the respondent/college to regularize their services in grant-in-aid post. However, their services are not absorbed in grant-in-aid. The petitioners are working in the respondent/college for several years with meager salary. In the year 2000 and later 2011 also some of the similarly situated persons working in the colleges was considered by the respondents vide G.O. Rt. No. 980, dated 15.12.2000 and they were regularized in a grant-in-aid post, without considering the case of the petitioners for absorbing into grant-in-aid post, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the Writ Petitions came to be filed. 5. Per contra, the respondents filed counter affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the petitioners are not entitled for being regularized in the service of respondent/college as a lecturer as there were no clear vacancies in the college in the particular subjects. Hence the Writ Petitions came to be filed. 5. Per contra, the respondents filed counter affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the petitioners are not entitled for being regularized in the service of respondent/college as a lecturer as there were no clear vacancies in the college in the particular subjects. Therefore the case of the petitioners cannot be considered and opposes to grant relief as claimed in the writ petition. 6. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the respondent college functions under the control of Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore it cannot be equated to a private college with a private management as the said College is under control of the Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Thus it has to be said that the petitioners have undergone selection process involving Government officials. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court have regularly exempted irregularities in selection procedures and passed judgments regularizing the services of similarly appointed lecturers. NET/SLET were made necessary for selection by the State of A.P only in 1999 and hence inapplicable to the instant case. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that The Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Vijayawada issued Memo dated. 12.2018 calling upon the Regional Joint Directors of Collegiate Education in the State to obtain and furnish the list of teaching (Unaided/PTL) and non-teaching staff (Full time/NMR/Daily Wages/Consolidated pay/PT Employees) working in aided Degree Colleges appointed prior to 25.11.1993. Pursuant to the same the respective colleges furnished particulars of the petitioners and shown vacancy positions. Therefore the appointment of the petitioners is not illegal. The State also implemented several decisions of the Hon'ble Courts in large number of cases and has regularized the services of similarly situated lecturers working on consolidated salary in different private aided colleges. Therefore there is no difference between those cases and the case of the petitioners. The petitioners working as lecturers in the respondent/college more than a decade and there are existing clear vacancies in the colleges and the petitioners also senior lecturers with good qualification. Thus the petitioners cannot be denied regularization on flimsy grounds. The state cannot discriminate between the similarly situated persons as the same is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. Thus the petitioners cannot be denied regularization on flimsy grounds. The state cannot discriminate between the similarly situated persons as the same is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is further contended that the petitioners have served as directed by the respondent colleges and performed all the duties as entrusted by the college, university and also Government all these years for a paltry salary. Therefore after more than several decades of impeccable services, to question their qualifications or selection procedure is highly illegal and arbitrary. 9. In the case of 'State of Karnataka and Others Vs. M.L. Kesari and others' (2010) 9 SCC 247 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: '9. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services'. 10. In fact, the unofficial respondents/management of the college supported the case of the petitioners and made recommendation, but the official respondents did not support the case. It is pointed out that the respondent-college is a minority educational institutions, which has certain privileges, and they had appointed the petitioners after following due process and by following the rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawn the attention of this Court to the various documents and also G.Os filed and argued that the petitioners are qualified to be appointed; that the due process was followed and that similarly placed lecturers, who have gone to Court, were appointed in aided vacancies and the petitioners are also entitled to the said relief. In fact, there were number of orders passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court, wherein G.O. Ms. No. 23, dated 10.03.1999 was considered and the appointments made thereunder were regularized and the lecturers so appointed were permitted to be absorbed in grant-in-aid posts. 11. In fact, there were number of orders passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court, wherein G.O. Ms. No. 23, dated 10.03.1999 was considered and the appointments made thereunder were regularized and the lecturers so appointed were permitted to be absorbed in grant-in-aid posts. 11. In reply to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education would contend that the case of the petitioners was refused by a speaking order, which contains several grounds, on which their cases was negatived. Further it is argued that the present cases are different from the other cases, which are referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Further contended that the individual appointment orders which were issued, which relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are issued in view of the cases pending pertaining to those lecturers and it is clearly mentioned that the order applies to the particular candidate only and shall not be treated as a precedent. Therefore it is argued that the petitioners are not entitled to regularization. 12. Following the decision cited supra and also agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners it is made clear that the petitioners are eligible for absorbing into a grant-in-aid post and regularizing of their services in the respondent/college, keeping in view of catena of decisions of this Court in several cases in the aided post of lecturers respectively. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the material on record and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, this Court directing the respondent/colleges to regularize the services of the petitioners as Lecturers by absorbing them into a grant-in-aid post, within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, while declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing them as lecturer as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.