Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1639 (AP)

Haripriya Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2023-12-27

HARINATH NUNEPALLY

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioner in WP.No.24668 of 2014 is the wife of writ petitioner in WP.No.24740 of 2014. The grievance of the petitioners is common in both the petitions, the proceedings dtd. 21/8/2014 issued by the 3rd respondent are under challenge in both the writ petitions. The petitioners were engaged as Assistant Professor, Department of General Surgery in the 3rd respondent institute. Both the writ petitioners joined the respondent No.3 as Assistant Professor on 21/3/2011 and that both of them were issued relieving letters on 21/8/2014. 2. As the grievance of the petitioners is common in both the writ petitions, a common order is passed. 3. The petitioners are challenging the proceedings dtd. 21/8/2014 whereby the petitioners were relieved from their duties. It is stated that there was no notice issued before relieving the petitioners from their duties. It is also submitted that the petitioners were discharging their duty to the best satisfaction of the management of the 3rd respondent. However, the 3rd respondent has exhibited the highhanded behavior and relieved the petitioners from service without assigning any reasons. It is also stated that the petitioners have not requested for relieving them from duty and the petitioners have not submitted any resignations. It is stated that the petitioners are entitled for atleast a notice before relieving the petitioners from service. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appointment letter dtd. 21/3/2011 mandates a probation period of 12 months and that in the event the 3rd respondent intends to terminate the services of the petitioners during the probation period, the petitioners could not have raised any objection if their services were terminated during the probation period. 5. As per Clause 6 of the Appointment Letter dtd. 21/3/2011 it is stated that in the event the petitioners intend to discontinue their service, the three months' notice in advance must be given by the petitioners or three months gross salary to be paid by the petitioners. In the event the institute intends to dispense with the service of the petitioners one month notice or one month remuneration in lieu of notice for dispensing the engagement would be followed. 6. In the event the institute intends to dispense with the service of the petitioners one month notice or one month remuneration in lieu of notice for dispensing the engagement would be followed. 6. The petitioners have challenged the relieving order and the relieving order is as follows; This is to certify that, Dr.HaripriyaReddy.Y. has worked as Assistant Professor in the Department of General Surgery at PES Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Kuppam and was relieved from her services with effect from the forenoon of 21/8/2014. This is to certify that, Dr.K.Karigalan has worked as Assistant Professor in the Department of General Surgery at PES Institute of Medical Sciences and research, Kuppam and was relieved from his services with effect from the forenoon of 21/8/2014. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3rd respondent has exhibited utmost highhandedness in handing over the relieving letter without even issuing a notice in advance or even without assigning any reason for abrupt relieving of the petitioners from their services. 8. This Court while admitting the writ petitions vide order dtd. 27/8/2014 directed the respondents to continue the petitioners in the post of Assistant Professors until further orders. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that a detailed counter is filed along with vacate stay petition on 11/9/2014 and submits that the 3rd respondent is a private medical college and cannot be amenable to writ jurisdiction where the petitioners are challenging infringement of their private rights. It is submitted that the petitioners submitted resignation letter dtd. 1/9/2012 and that the prior notice dtd. 20/5/2014 was issued conveying the intention of relieving the petitioners from their duties. The 3rd respondent has filed additional material papers and brought to the notice of the Court that the copies of resignation letters. 10. It is stated that during course of service of the petitioners the petitioner in WP.No.24740 of 2014 was alleged to have indulged in some misconduct along with the students and the internal enquiry committee against the complaint of ragging was dealt. The other aspects with respect to the petitioner in WP.No.24740 of 2014 involving in misconduct such as taking of photos in operation theater, circulating them in social media and communication to the Registrar, University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada was made by the principal of the 3rd respondent/college. 11. The other aspects with respect to the petitioner in WP.No.24740 of 2014 involving in misconduct such as taking of photos in operation theater, circulating them in social media and communication to the Registrar, University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada was made by the principal of the 3rd respondent/college. 11. The petitioners have filed contempt cases vide CC.Nos.1831 of 2014 and 1832 of2014 as the interim orders were not complied with. The respondents have filed their counters in the contempt cases and the contempt cases are taken up along with the main writ petitions. It is submitted that the petitioners have suppressed the resignation letters issued by them and the relieving letters are in pursuance of the intention of the petitioners to resign from the services. 12. As seen from the relieving letter there are no adverse remarks against the petitioners. The petitioners have filed reply affidavit along with the reply affidavit have filed a copy of the charge sheet in Cr.NO.7 of 2015. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the resignation letters are forged and that the petitioners have filed a complaint which is registered as Cr.No.7 of 2015 and after enquiry the police have filed charge sheet it is taken on file as CC.No.27 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the police have obtained the opinion of FSL, Hyderabad. The matter is pending for trial before the Magistrate Court. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has indulged in acts of forgery, fabrication of documents and the issuing of relieving letters allegedly on the basis of the fabricated resignation letters is an offence which is punishable under the Penal Law. 13. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of parties and perused the material on record. 14. The issue of relieving letters reliving the petitioners from service is under challenge in the writ petitions. The legal point which deserves consideration is the maintainability of writ petition against a private medical college. The Division Bench of High Court of Delhi reported in the matter of Sanjay Gupta Vs. Dr.Sharoff's Charity Eye Hospital, 2002 SCC online Delhi 201. 14. The issue of relieving letters reliving the petitioners from service is under challenge in the writ petitions. The legal point which deserves consideration is the maintainability of writ petition against a private medical college. The Division Bench of High Court of Delhi reported in the matter of Sanjay Gupta Vs. Dr.Sharoff's Charity Eye Hospital, 2002 SCC online Delhi 201. a similar issue was considered by the High Court of Delhi, wherein the right to terminate the services of employees by giving one month notice and also a direction to regularize the services of the petitioners therein was considered. It was decided that writ petition will not be maintainable in relation to a matter which does not involve public law character. 15. Similarly, on the facts of the above case it is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent is a private hospital and the terms of employment and service are purely a private affair between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent. The same do not have any public law character. The prayer seeking writ of mandamus can be issued only if the cause of action arises out of an act of public duty. 16. A mandamus can be issued only when there exists a legal right in the petitioner and legal obligation on the respondent. The terms and conditions of employment between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent are not covered under the definition of public duty. 17. This Court is not going into the aspect of whether the procedure adopted by the 3rdrespondent in issuing the relieving letters under challenge is proper or not. The remedy of challenging the relieving letters which according to the petitioners are illegal, the petitioners would have to redress their grievance by invoking the jurisdiction of a competent court seeking damages. 18. The criminal case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppamvide CC.No.27 of 2016 which is filed by the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sec. 420, 465, 506 read with 34 of IPCand the same pending for trial. This Court is not expressing its view on the pending criminal case as the petitioners will have to adduce evidence and the Magistrate Court would be deciding the same on merits. 19. This Court is not expressing its view on the pending criminal case as the petitioners will have to adduce evidence and the Magistrate Court would be deciding the same on merits. 19. The scope of the writ petitions seeking the relief of mandamus against a private college in a matter arising out of a contract or arrangement between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent cannot be entertained and it is apt to refer Sec. 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is as follows ; Sec. 14:Contracts not specifically enforceable:The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely: (a) where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of contract in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 20; (b) a contract, the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise; (c) a contract which is so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms; and (d) a contract which is in its nature determinable. 20. Sec. 14 (b) of Specific Relief Act permits specific performance of Contract which is dependent on personal violation of the employer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Airport Authorities case 2 had dealt in elaborate manner for deciding whether a company or a society or an authority is a state or not. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically cleared the ambiguity on considering any organization, society or authority as a state or not. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the facts of the present case on hand, the petitioners have not made out any case for grant of any relief from this Court. 21. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed, without costs. 22. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions the contempt cases are also closed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.