Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1169 (AP)

A. Venkata Ratnam v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-08-22

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “.......to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners and absorb them into grant in aid with effect from the date of their initial appointment or at least from the date of availability of aided vacancy in their subjects with all consequential benefits and/or to grant minimum time scale to the petitioners with effect from the date of their eligibility and entitlement with all consequential benefits and arrears by holding the action of the respondents in not absorbing them into grant-in- aid and/or not granting minimum time scale to them as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional, besides being inhuman and atrocious by issuance of Writ of Mandamus and pass such other order or orders.....” 2. The case of the petitioners is that all the petitioners joined as Junior Lecturers in the 4th respondent/College in unaided posts in different subject streams. They were paid meagre salary of Rs.500/- per month, and the same was increased up to Rs.9,000/-. All the petitioners are working in the aided posts in their respective subject streams since 01.02.2005, 17.10.2002, 01.02.2005 and 01.02.2005 respectively. Further, the petitioners along with another filed W.P. No. 7713 of 2006, wherein this Court vide its order dated 31.07.2013 directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption into grant-in-aid vacancies. Despite representations made by the petitioners, the respondents have not chosen to take further steps in the matter. Out of the four petitioners, in so far as petitioner no. 4 is concerned, the management addressed a letter dated 20.08.2018 proposing his absorption into the grant-in-aid vacancies with effect from the date of availability. The said proposal was sent by the management on the request made by the RJD dated 07.08.2018. The other petitioners were also under the bona-fide impression that their cases also would be considered in due course. But, no steps were taken by the 4th respondent/College for absorbing them into the grant-in-aid post. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The 2nd respondent filed his counter inter alia contending that the 4th respondent/College has appointed the petitioners against un-aided post purely on temporary basis without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority as per the G.O.Ms. No. 12 Education (CEI-2) Department, dated 10.01.1992. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The 2nd respondent filed his counter inter alia contending that the 4th respondent/College has appointed the petitioners against un-aided post purely on temporary basis without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority as per the G.O.Ms. No. 12 Education (CEI-2) Department, dated 10.01.1992. When there is a shortage of manpower occurred in private aided Junior Colleges, the management of the colleges are competent to engage them on temporary/adhoc basis to meet their day to day needs. As the expenditure incurred in the form of remuneration is being borne by the college management, necessary permission or approval for such appointment need not be obtained from the 2nd respondent or any other Government authorities. Hence, mere appointment by the College management on un-aided basis does not confer any right to the petitioners to claim their absorption into the grant-in-aid vacancies. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioners were appointed by the management without prior permission and without notifying the vacancies through advertisement and without constitution of the selection committee and without following the due procedure. 4. As per the Rule 7(4) of A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 vide G.O.Ms. No. 29 Higher Education Department, dated 05.02.1985, the payment of salaries to unaided staff is the responsibility of the concerned management only. The Government of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Act No. 2 of 1994 and as per Section 3 (2) of the Act, no temporary appointment shall be made into any post in any class, category or grade without prior permission of the competent authority and without the name of the concerned candidate being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 5. The 1st respondent has communicated the Memo No. 257276/IE/A1/2016 dated 08.05.2018 to the 2nd respondent requesting to examine the request of petitioner no. 4, who is working as Junior Lecturer (Geology) for his regularization as per Rules in force. After examination of the particulars, the 2nd respondent found that the name of the petitioners are in the list, but none of the them were appointed with the prior approval of the competent authority and no procedure has been followed by the management while appointing the petitioners, which is contrary to Act No. 2 of 1994, more so, they were appointed during the ban period. Hence, the petitioners do not confer any right to demand for absorption of their services. The request of the petitioners for absorption into grant-in-aid post cannot be considered as there are no such rules in existence to regularize the services of the petitioners or to absorb them into aided posts. 6. It is further stated that, the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 35 HE (CE-II) department, dated 27.03.2006 imposed ban on the recruitment in private aided colleges against the aided vacancies. Hence, G.O.Ms. No. 12 School Education (IE) Department, dated 24.02.2021 cannot be treated as precedent case to the instant case as the said G.O. was issued to regularize the services of some individuals only, in which the petitioners were party to W.P. No. 1108 of 2014 and the said G.O. was issued subject to outcome of W.A. No. 344 of 2020. The petitioners herein have no locus standi to seek absorption into aided post and hence, they sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 7. Heard Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 8. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were joined as Junior Lecturers in the 4th respondent/College on the above mentioned dates in un-aided posts in the various subject streams. They are also working in aided posts in their respective subject streams from the date of their appointment. There are vacancies in the aided post and they are working in those aided posts. The only grievance of the petitioners is that despite several representations made to the respondents, the respondent authorities did not take any steps for extending the benefit of absorption to the petitioners as was done earlier for similarly situated persons. 9. On perusal, the material papers would indicate that the petitioners herein, who were appointed as Junior Lecturers in un-aided posts initially, and were absorbed into aided vacancies with effect from 01.02.2005, 01.02.2005, 01.02.2005 and 17.10.2002 respectively. Further, the letters dated 18.10.2002 and 01.02.2005 addressed by the 4th respondent College to the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh would indicate the ratification of their action in absorbing the petitioners in aided vacant Junior Lecturer posts. 10. A reading of G.O.Rt. Further, the letters dated 18.10.2002 and 01.02.2005 addressed by the 4th respondent College to the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh would indicate the ratification of their action in absorbing the petitioners in aided vacant Junior Lecturer posts. 10. A reading of G.O.Rt. No. 83 Higher Education (CE.II.1) Department dated 08.02.2002, would categorically show the ratified action of absorption of similar cases of Lecturers, who were appointed in grant-in-aid post into the aided government post. The only request of the petitioner is that in spite of several representations were made, the respondent authorities did not take any action for extending such benefit in respect of petitioners herein. 11. The G.O.Ms. No. 12 School Education (IE) Department dated 24.02.2021 would indicate the procedure for filling up the vacancies and the procedure for selection of Lecturers or Junior Lecturers in the Private Colleges. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the procedure stated supra, irrespective of the fact whether the petitioners were recruited as per the procedure contemplated in G.O.Ms. No. 12 dated 10.01.1992 and keeping in view the services rendered by the petitioners from the date of their Joining in the 4th respondent College, it would be suffice, if the cases of the petitioners are to be considered by the competent authority for being absorbing them into the aided posts. 13. Accordingly, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption into the grant-in-aid posts, if they are found eligible. 14. With the above said direction, the present Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.