Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1511 (AP)

T. Baba Fakruddin v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2024-10-24

HARINATH NUNEPALLY

body2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER : Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been engaged during the years 1991-2005 at Sri Venkateswara University P.G. Center, Kadapa, on temporary basis. After the establishment of Yogi Vemana University, Kadapa, the teaching and non-teaching staff who were working in the S.V. University, P.G. Centre, Kadapa, were transferred to the second respondent, Yogi Vemana University. Later, the petitioners sought regularization of their services. The Vice-Chancellor of the second respondent, Yogi Vemana University, issued proceedings dated 12.10.2012, regularizing the services of the petitioners, as they were stated to be working in the existing posts and also in the sanctioned vacancies. Thereafter, the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 07.02.2013, kept the regularization proceedings dated 12.10.2012 in abeyance on account of the decision taken by the executive committee of the second respondent in its meeting held on 21.01.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. It is submitted that the decision relating to the regularization of the services of the petitioners was pending consideration with the first respondent from the year 2013. The first respondent issued proceedings dated 16.04.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization. The said proceedings are also challenged in the present writ petition by amendment of the prayer. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are still working in the second respondent-Yogi Vemana University and they are drawing the time scale. The petitioners are also granted D.A. and H.R.A. as well. The petitioners are not drawing any increments, as the same would be paid to regular employees. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for regularization as no separate recruitment was notified after formation of the second respondent-Yogi Vemana University. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Government, after careful consideration of the case of the petitioners, has passed a speaking order dated 16.04.2021 whereby it is stated that only two employees fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.04.1994, with regard to the completion of five years of service as on 25.11.1993. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Government, after careful consideration of the case of the petitioners, has passed a speaking order dated 16.04.2021 whereby it is stated that only two employees fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.04.1994, with regard to the completion of five years of service as on 25.11.1993. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on Section 49 of the A.P. University Act that in all financial matters, the Government has the final say. It is also submitted that the regularization of these petitioners would be contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806 . It is also submitted that the services of the petitioners were also engaged illegally and that they would not be entitled for regularization. Consideration of the Court : 6. As enumerated in the communication of the second respondent dated 30.01.2013, the total number of 31 vacant posts are said to have been transferred from Sri Venkateswara University to Yogi Vemana University. After 30.01.2013, the second respondent has not issued any notification for filling up the posts and all the petitioners are discharging their duties by accepting the time scale in the vacancy, which is already existing and transferred from Sri Venkateswara University P.G. Centre, Kadapa. In these facts and circumstances, the engagement of the petitioners cannot be termed as illegal. Their services are transferred from Sri Venkateswara P.G. Centre, Kadapa, to the second respondent-Yogi Vemana University. 7. It is not the case of the second respondent-Yogi Vemana University that they have conducted a regular recruitment to fill up the vacant posts. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are not eligible to hold the said posts. It is also not disputed that some of the petitioners were engaged as early as 1991. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraph 5 of the additional counter, wherein the petitioner, S. Abdulla, who was shown at Sl.No.15 was engaged in 1987 and the petitioner, P. Balaiah, who was shown at Sl.No.13 was engaged on 17.07.2005. 8. It is not in dispute that several petitioners have completed more than 20 years of their service with the second respondent-Yogi Vemana University. 8. It is not in dispute that several petitioners have completed more than 20 years of their service with the second respondent-Yogi Vemana University. It is also not disputed that the petitioners are drawing the time scale. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners arrayed at Sl.Nos.18, 19 and 21 have died. The petitioner No.10 has attained the age of superannuation and the petitioner No.4 is regularized. The petitioners would be entitled for regularization of their services as they have been working consistently in the sanctioned posts for all these years. 9. Alongwith the counter, the first respondent filed the list of the candidates who were extended the time scale. As seen from the list, the candidates at Sl.Nos.1 to 18, who were arrayed as petitioners in the writ petition at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 28, were extended the time scale with effect from 01.06.2008, the candidates at Sl.Nos.19 to 25, 28 and 29, who were arrayed as petitioners in the writ petition at Sl.Nos.5, 6, 14, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29, were extended the time scale with effect from 09.10.2010, and the candidates at Sl.Nos.26, 27 and 30, who were arrayed as the petitioners in the writ petition at Sl.Nos.7, 16 and 30 were extended the time scale with effect from 01.01.2011. The petitioners have been consistently receiving the time scale extended by the respondents in pursuance of the resolution passed by the executive committee of the second respondent. 10. Insofar as not considering the petitioners' case for regularization on account of non-completion of five years of service as on 25.11.1993 is concerned, the said proposition would not apply to the petitioners as their services are transferred from Sri Venkateswara University P.G. Centre to the second respondent-Yogi Vemana University and that by the date of their transfer, there were existing vacancies in the university and all the petitioners have consistently continued to work in the same post. There was no regular recruitment process undertaken by the second respondent to fill up the said post. 11. Further, the petitioners are not working under the cover of any Court orders and their services cannot be considered illegal. There was no regular recruitment process undertaken by the second respondent to fill up the said post. 11. Further, the petitioners are not working under the cover of any Court orders and their services cannot be considered illegal. On the other hand, the inaction on the part of the respondents to issue any notification for filling up the posts has to be found at fault. It cannot be said that the second respondent university could run without any sanctioned posts. In other words, there are sanctioned posts and existing vacancies and all the petitioners are permitted to continue in the post without undertaking any regular recruitment process. In these circumstances, the services of the petitioners deserve to be regularized. 12. The State cannot be permitted to run any university without permanent staff. The Universities are temples of learning, fostering intellectual growth, innovation and progress. The State run universities should be able to match with the standards of the growing deemed and private universities. The standards of education and infrastructure of a University greatly depends on its human resources. The staff of the University contribute for its growth. Thus the services of the staff of the University deserve to be recognized and rewarded. Then only the staff would go the extra mile by owning the University and its work. This would in turn make the university a better place to grow academically and socially. The denial of the regularization of the petitioners' services despite their continued service for more than 20 years is an irrational act on the part of the respondents. 13. The first respondent, instead of disposing of the reference of the second respondent University within the shortest possible time after the resolution of its executive committee, referred the matter to the Government for consideration of regularization of the petitioners in the year 2013. The first respondent has slept over the matter and passed an order on 16.04.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The belated orders passed by the Government are not only detrimental to the service of the petitioners but also unknown to the service jurisprudence. The belated rejection of the case of the petitioners has to put the petitioners' careers at stake. Such belated orders of the Government deserve to be set aside. 14. The belated orders passed by the Government are not only detrimental to the service of the petitioners but also unknown to the service jurisprudence. The belated rejection of the case of the petitioners has to put the petitioners' careers at stake. Such belated orders of the Government deserve to be set aside. 14. Hence, the proceedings dated 07.02.2013 issued by the second respondent and the proceedings dated 16.04.2021 issued by the first respondent are hereby set aside. The respondents shall issue necessary orders in pursuance of the proceedings dated 12.10.2012 issued by the second respondent to each of the petitioners who are in service as on date, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 15. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed without costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.