JUDGMENT G.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. - Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Kotha Rama Mohan Rao, Learned Standing Counsel for Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University. 2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: "It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the Memo No.11576/Ser. I/2008 dtd. 9/12/2019 of the 1st respondent wherein informed the petitioner that he will not be considered in future for the post of Associate Dean in any constituent Colleges of the University and appointing the 4th respondent as Associate Dean of NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram ignoring the case of petitioner though he is senior than the 4th respondent in the cadre of Professor vide Proc. No.350054/Ser.I/2021 dated 30-10- 2023 of the 1st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, violative of amended Rule 28 of AP Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 issued vide GOMs.No.92 (GAD) dtd. 28/8/2023 apart from being violative of law declared by this Honble Court in MVRLS Ravikanth vs State of Andhra Pradesh ((2017) 06 AP CK 0001) G.Boyanna Vs. Registrar (Admn.) High Court of AP and Anr.{ 2009(2) ALD 402 (DB)} and The District Educational Officer, Kurnool and Ors vs. Shahnaz Begum (WP No. 26654 of 2005) and consequently set aside the same by directing the Respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion/appointment to the post of Associate Dean in NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram or in any other constituent colleges in the existing or in future vacancy as per his Seniority and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." FACTS IN BRIEF: 3. Petitioner herein is a Professor working in NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram, Krishna District, one of the constituent colleges of the Respondent No.1 University. Respondent No.1 University, by Proceedings bearing Proc.No.3839/Ser.I/2013, dtd. 25/2/2013 (Ex.P.2), has issued guidelines with approval of the Board of Management for appointment of Associate Deans of Colleges under Respondent No.1 University. Guideline No.6 would stipulate that a faculty member denying the assignment twice when offered, shall not be considered subsequently for a similar post or any other higher administrative responsibility. Subsequently, vide Proceedings bearing Proc.No.3839/Services.I/2012, dtd. 25/2/2013 (Ex.P.2), has issued guidelines with approval of the Board of Management for appointment of Associate Deans of Colleges under Respondent No.1 University. Guideline No.6 would stipulate that a faculty member denying the assignment twice when offered, shall not be considered subsequently for a similar post or any other higher administrative responsibility. Subsequently, vide Proceedings bearing Proc.No.3839/Services.I/2012, dtd. 21/9/2017, the Guideline No.7 has been incorporated, which reads as under: Existing guideline Revised guideline 7. Appointment of Associate Dean will be made by the Vice-Chancellor based on the recommendations of the Faculty Deans Committee When such appointed Professor declines to accept the offer without any valid and genuine reasons, he/she shall not be considered subsequently for similar post in same or other constituent college. Consequently, in such situation, the other Professors in the panel recommended by Faculty Deans Committee will be considered and so on and appointed by Vice-Chancellor based on seniority and suitability. 4. The Guideline No.6 in the Proceeding bearing Proc.No.3839/Ser.I/2013, dtd. 25/2/2013 has been deleted in the new Proceedings dtd. 21/9/2017. 5. The Writ Petitioner was appointed as Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur, for a period of two years with effect from the date of assumption of charge vide Proceeding bearing Proc.No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dtd. 10/9/2018 (Ex.P.3). Within five days from the issuance of these Proceedings, the Writ Petitioner herein has submitted a Representation to the Registrar of Respondent No.1 University on 15/9/2018 (Ex.P.4) to the effect that he will not be able to assume charge as Associate Dean in view of the ill-health of his wife which includes diagnosis of thyroid carcinoma and associated treatment. The said Representation dtd. 15/9/2018 is extracted as under: "I submit that I have been appointed as Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur, vide ref. cited above. In this connection, I submit the following for kind consideration by the University. My wife Dr. V. Rama Devi is working as Professor and Head in the Dept. of Veterinary Pathology at NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram. She has some health issues and is in need of continuous medical supervision and family support. She has undergone complete thyroidectomy on being diagnosed with thyroid carcinoma. The subsequent stress and post thyroidectomy complications lead to other issues like diabetes and hypertension. She also had to undergo discectomy following disc extrusion recently. Of late, she is having hypoglycaemic episodes necessitating constant personal care and medical attention. She has undergone complete thyroidectomy on being diagnosed with thyroid carcinoma. The subsequent stress and post thyroidectomy complications lead to other issues like diabetes and hypertension. She also had to undergo discectomy following disc extrusion recently. Of late, she is having hypoglycaemic episodes necessitating constant personal care and medical attention. The medical reports pertaining to the above conditions are enclosed for kind perusal. At present my place of work being nearer to our residence, I am able to attend to her with frequent visits and the same will not be possible if I join at Proddatur. In view of the above explained health status of my spouse, I submit that, I am unable to accept the responsibility of Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur, at this point of time, and request that I may be given another chance in due course of time. Yours faithfully, (P. Ravi Kumar)" 6. Along with the said Letter, Writ Petitioner has also enclosed the Medical Reports pertaining to the illness of his wife. At that time, the Writ Petitioner was working as Principal, Animal Husbandry, Polytechnic, Venkatarama Gudem, West Godavari District. 7. As a response to the requisition submitted by the Writ Petitioner dtd. 15/9/2018, the Respondent No.1 University, vide Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dtd. 20/9/2018, had cancelled the appointment of the Writ Petitioner as Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur. It has also been stated in the said Proceeding that the cancellation has been done keeping in view the Representation made by the Writ Petitioner about his wife's health status. The relevant portion of the Proceeding is usefully extracted hereunder: "In the ref.3rd cited, Dr. P. Ravi Kumar, Professor (VPT) and Principal has informed that, in view of his wife's health status, he is unable to accept the responsibility of Associate Dean, CVSc, Proddatur at this point of time. (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, on considering upon the representation made by him, the orders issued vide ref.2nd cited, appointing Dr.P.Ravi Kumar, Principal, AH Polytechnic, VR Gudem are hereby cancelled. J.V. RAMANA REGISTRAR i/c" 8. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 University, vide Memo No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dtd. 9/12/2019, has informed the Writ Petitioner that the reasons stated in the Representation made by the Writ Petitioner dtd. 15/9/2018 (Ex.P.4) are not valid and therefore, the Writ Petitioner will not be considered in future for similar post in any constituent college of the University. The relevant portion of Memo No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dtd. 9/12/2019, has informed the Writ Petitioner that the reasons stated in the Representation made by the Writ Petitioner dtd. 15/9/2018 (Ex.P.4) are not valid and therefore, the Writ Petitioner will not be considered in future for similar post in any constituent college of the University. The relevant portion of Memo No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dtd. 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6) is extracted hereunder: "In the ref.4th cited, orders issued to Dr.P.Ravi Kumar, Principal, AHP, VR Gudem appointing him as Associate Dean, CVSc, Proddatur were cancelled as per the representation made by him vide ref.3rd cited. Dr.P.Ravi Kumar, Principal, AHP, VR Gudem is informed that the reasons submitted by him for not accepting the assignment of Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur are not valid. Therefore, Dr.P.Ravi Kumar is informed that he will not be considered in future for similar post in any constituent college of the University. D.SRINIVASA RAO REGISTRAR" 9. It is pertinent to state that the decision of Respondent No.1 University that the reasons cited by the Writ Petitioner about his wife's ill-health is not valid, has been communicated to the Writ Petitioner after more than one year. It is also pertinent to submit that the Writ Petitioner did not challenge the decision of the Respondent No.1 University dtd. 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6). However, after several years, the Petitioner submitted a Representation dtd. 26/10/2023 to Respondent No.1 University to the effect that he may be considered for being appointed as Associate Dean for NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram. Without considering the said request of the Writ Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 University has issued Impugned Proceedings bearing Proc.No.350054/Ser.I/2021, dtd. 30/10/2023 (Ex.P.1), appointing the Unofficial Respondent No.4 as Associate Dean of NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram, Krishna District. SUBMISSIONS OF SMT. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONER: 10. Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has assailed the Impugned Order and also the impugned actions of Respondent No.1 University on the following grounds: a) That the amended guidelines vide Proceedings bearing Proc.No.3839/Services.I/2012, dtd. 21/9/2017 is arbitrary in nature; b) That the University, having accepted the Representation given by the Writ Petitioner dtd. 15/9/2018 and had cancelled the appointment of the Writ Petitioner as Associate Dean on account of severe ill-health of his wife. 21/9/2017 is arbitrary in nature; b) That the University, having accepted the Representation given by the Writ Petitioner dtd. 15/9/2018 and had cancelled the appointment of the Writ Petitioner as Associate Dean on account of severe ill-health of his wife. Having done so, the Respondent No.1 is not permitted to then decide that the reason given by the Writ Petitioner for declining the post of Associate Dean as not valid, after period of more than one year; c) That the decision rendered by the Respondent No.1 vide Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dtd. 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6) is arbitrary and also illegal and therefore that the same cannot be put against the Writ Petitioner forever; d) The law even with regard to the promotions as per Rule-28 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 has been clarified to the effect that future promotion cannot be denied to an employee if the employee has relinquished the right or privilege of promotion to a particular vacancy at one point of time. 11. In support of this, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has relied on a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.V.R.L.S. Ravikanth Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh : ( (2018) 1 ALD 550 (DB)) (W.P.No.13624 of 2015) wherein a Division Bench of this Court had held that the view taken by the Department that the Petitioner therein cannot be considered for promotion during the next promotion exercise since the Employee has failed to join in the earlier promotion post is bad in law and contrary to Rules 11 (b) and 28 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has submitted that the Division Bench in W.P.No.13624 of 2015 has followed the ratio rendered by another Division Bench in G. Boyanna Vs. Registrar (Administration), High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. : 2009 (2) ALD 402 (DB). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also submitted that while following these two Division Bench Orders, a Learned Single Judge of this Court (in W.P.No.21718 of 2022, dtd. 24/11/2022), held that an Employee cannot be deprived of promotion for the second time if he has opted not to take the promotion on the earlier occasion. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also submitted that while following these two Division Bench Orders, a Learned Single Judge of this Court (in W.P.No.21718 of 2022, dtd. 24/11/2022), held that an Employee cannot be deprived of promotion for the second time if he has opted not to take the promotion on the earlier occasion. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that on the direction of the Learned Single Judge, the Respondents have suitably amended Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, by providing an Explanation, which is as under: AMENDMENT In the said rules, in Rule-28, after the proviso, the following shall be added namely:- Explanation: (i) In respect of promotion to a member of service, who has exercised relinquishment of promotion due to any reason, Rule 28 does not disentitle him/her from being considered for promotion in a future vacancy merely because he/she had relinquished his/her right under the Rules for promotion earlier. (ii) Relinquishment of right or privilege of promotion to a particular vacancy would not amount to permanent relinquishment of right of privilege for promotion to that particular vacancy. The Rule-28 cannot be read or interpreted to mean that his/her right to be considered for promotion to any vacancy arising in future also is permanently extinguished. (iii) The relinquishment of an opportunity for promotion, which arose for an employee occupying certain place in seniority list in the panel year, in view of a vacancy that arose then, in view of the fact he/she was eligible for promotion in the light of the criteria laid down in the Rules, would mean that the extent the privilege has been relinquished is confined to the privilege related to that particular vacancy/panel year which was available to him/her by virtue of the above mentioned circumstances. The Rule cannot be interpreted to mean that the relinquishment was in respect of future vacancies also. Therefore, the right of the Member of Service shall be considered in future vacancy for promotion, if otherwise eligible." 12. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also submitted that under similar circumstances, one Dr. K. Veera Bramhaiah, Professor (VGO) College of Veterinary Science, Tirupati, was also once declined being appointed as Associate Dean vide Proceeding dtd. 16/12/2020 (Ex.P.8) while the same Professor, two years later, was appointed as Dean of Veterinary Science, SVVU Tirupati. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also submitted that under similar circumstances, one Dr. K. Veera Bramhaiah, Professor (VGO) College of Veterinary Science, Tirupati, was also once declined being appointed as Associate Dean vide Proceeding dtd. 16/12/2020 (Ex.P.8) while the same Professor, two years later, was appointed as Dean of Veterinary Science, SVVU Tirupati. SUBMISSIONS OF SRI KOTHA RAMA MOHAN RAO, LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 3: 13. Sri Kotha Rama Mohan Rao, Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that amongst the eligible Professors, basing on seniority-cum-suitability, they are appointed as Associate Deans in the constituent colleges for a period of two years. After completion of two years, the Professor who has been appointed as an Associate Dean would go back to his parent department as Professor. He submits that under these circumstances, the appointment of Associate Dean is not by way of Promotion and that an Associate Dean is appointed for a period of two years. He would submit that under these service conditions, a Professor being appointed as Associate Dean is not by way of a Promotion. Since a Professor is appointed as Associate Dean in one of the constituent colleges of the Respondent No.1 University for a period of two years, it can only be treated at least as a 'tenure posting', whereas, a promotion would contemplate permanent continuance of the promoted candidate until such Employee superannuates or gets further promotion or has been removed from service for any reason. 14. Learned Standing Counsel would also submit that the Writ Petitioner has assumed that it is a 'promotional post' and therefore, has relied on the analogy of the amendment made to the Rule 28 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 vide G.O.Ms.No.92, General Administration (Services-D) Department, dtd. 28/8/2023. He would submit that the reliance placed by the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner with regard to discrimination by projecting the case of Dr. K. Veera Bramhaiah, is also not correct. Learned Counsel would submit that in the case of Dr. K. Veera Bramhaiah, who is a Professor (VGO), College of Veterinary Science, Tirupati, he has been appointed as Dean of Veterinary Science, SVVU Tirupati. In the said premise, the disqualification of Dr. K. Veera Bramhaiah vide Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dtd. 16/12/2020 (Ex.P.8) would only be for the future consideration of Dr. Learned Counsel would submit that in the case of Dr. K. Veera Bramhaiah, who is a Professor (VGO), College of Veterinary Science, Tirupati, he has been appointed as Dean of Veterinary Science, SVVU Tirupati. In the said premise, the disqualification of Dr. K. Veera Bramhaiah vide Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dtd. 16/12/2020 (Ex.P.8) would only be for the future consideration of Dr. K. Veera Bramhaiah for Associate Dean because the amended Guideline No.7 would indicate that such persons who had declined to accept the offer as 'Associate Dean' without valid reason 'shall not be considered subsequently for similar post in the same or other constituent college'. DISCUSSION: 15. The admitted facts are that the Writ Petitioner is working as Professor in NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram, which is one of the constituent colleges of the 1st Respondent University; that as the Writ Petitioner became eligible based on seniority-cum-suitability by Proceedings dtd. 10/9/2018 (Ex.P.3), he was appointed as Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur for a period of two years; that on 15/9/2018, the Writ Petitioner has expressed his inability to accept the responsibility of Associate Dean in College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur for the reasons stated in his Representation dtd. 15/9/2018 (Ex.P.4); that on 20/9/2018, the Respondent No.1 University has cancelled the appointment of the Writ Petitioner (Ex.P.5); that after 14 months, the Respondent No.1 University vide Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dtd. 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6) has issued Proceedings stating that the reasons submitted by the Writ Petitioner for not accepting the assignment of Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur, are not valid and therefore, he shall not be considered in future for similar post in the constituent college of the Respondent No.1 University. 16. It has to be noted that the Respondent No.1 University vide Proceeding No.3839/Services.I/2012, dtd. 21/9/2017 (at Page.No.20 of the material documents) has introduced Guideline No.7 (extracted supra). It is also to be noted that the Writ Petitioner has expressly stated in his Representation dtd. 15/9/2018 (Ex.P.4) the reasons for his inability to accept the assignment and assume charge as Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur. The medical reasons along with documents were submitted by the Writ Petitioner. The content of the Letter dtd. 15/9/2018 (Ex.P.4) is already extracted hereinabove. This would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has not only stated about the medical reasons of his wife but has also submitted the 'medical reports'. The medical reasons along with documents were submitted by the Writ Petitioner. The content of the Letter dtd. 15/9/2018 (Ex.P.4) is already extracted hereinabove. This would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has not only stated about the medical reasons of his wife but has also submitted the 'medical reports'. The Respondent No.1 University has, within five days, cancelled the appointment of the Writ Petitioner as Associate Dean (Ex.P.5), whereas, the permanent disqualification of the Writ Petitioner was communicated by Respondent No.1 to the Writ Petitioner only after more than 14 months vide Memo No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dtd. 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6). 17. On close scrutiny of Ex.P.6 (Memo.No.1576/Ser.I/2008 dtd. 9/12/2019), it would indicate that even from amongst the 'References' cited in Ex.P.6, they would not disclose that there was any enquiry conducted, nor that the Petitioner was put to any kind of advance Notice as regards the proposed decision to disqualify the Writ Petitioner permanently for holding the post of Associate Dean in the future. This apart, the decision taken by the Respondent No.1 University that the reasons cited by the Writ Petitioner vide his Letter dtd. 15/9/2018 (Ex.P.4) are not valid has been communicated only after a period of 14 months. 18. In the backdrop of these facts, the following issues would arise for consideration before this Court: Issues: A) Whether the appointment of Professor as Associate Dean is by way of 'Promotion' or whether it is a 'tenure based post'? B) Whether the Guideline No.7 is valid and whether there can be a permanent disqualification for promotion to the post of Associate Dean if the candidate has expressed inability for holding such post? 19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court deems it appropriate to suo motu frame two Additional Issues. Additional Issues: C) Whether the decision of the Respondent No.1 University vide Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dtd. 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6) is valid or is vitiated for non-adherence to principles of Natural Justice? D) If the Memo No.11576/Ser.I/2008 dtd. 9/12/2019 is vitiated due to non-adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice, whether the Writ Petitioner should be considered for the post of Associate Dean at NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram in place of Respondent No.4? Promotional Post or Tenure Based Post (Issue-'A'): 20. D) If the Memo No.11576/Ser.I/2008 dtd. 9/12/2019 is vitiated due to non-adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice, whether the Writ Petitioner should be considered for the post of Associate Dean at NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram in place of Respondent No.4? Promotional Post or Tenure Based Post (Issue-'A'): 20. This Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the appointment of a Professor as Associate Dean of a constituent college, Respondent No.1 University is only a 'tenure post' for a period of two years. The said post does not have the attributes of a promotional post inasmuch as the same is limited to two year period and that it is not permanent. Since the Professor, who is appointed as Associate Dean for a period of two years, upon completion of such tenure, is reverted back to his parent Department/College as the case may be, it is held that, it is a 'tenure post'. Additional Issue-'C': 21. This Court has noticed the amendment made to Guidelines vide Proceedings dtd. 21/9/2017 by the Respondent No.1 University by which Guideline No.7 was incorporated. This amendment to the Guidelines has not been challenged by the Writ Petitioner. Therefore, it has to be clarified that this Court is not examining the validity of the amendment made by the Respondent No.1 University to the Guidelines on 21/9/2017 because the Writ Petitioner has not challenged the Guideline No.7. This Court has also noticed that the Writ Petitioner has cited certain reasons for his inability to accept the assignment as Associate Dean in the College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur. Whereas the Respondent No.1 University has conveyed its decision that the Writ Petitioner is permanently disqualified from holding the post of Associate Dean since the reasons cited by him vide his Letter dtd. 15/9/2018 (Ex.P.4) are not valid. This Court has to examine whether the decision of the Respondent No.1 University made and communicated 14 months after the Writ Petitioner expressed his inability is violative of principles of Natural Justice? 22. As indicated earlier, the communication made by the Respondent No.1 University dtd. 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6) is after more than a period of one year, by which, the Respondent No.1 University has informed the Writ Petitioner that the reasons stated by him for not accepting the offer to be appointed as Associate Dean at Proddatur, is not valid and genuine. 22. As indicated earlier, the communication made by the Respondent No.1 University dtd. 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6) is after more than a period of one year, by which, the Respondent No.1 University has informed the Writ Petitioner that the reasons stated by him for not accepting the offer to be appointed as Associate Dean at Proddatur, is not valid and genuine. On close examination of Ex.P.6 dtd. 9/12/2019, it transpires that the Respondent No.1 University has not issued any Notice prior to the decision taken by Respondent No.1 to disqualify the Petitioner as Associate Dean or similar post in the future. It is a settled law that when the Authority proposes or contemplates to pass any Order which is likely to have adverse bearing on the service conditions of an employee, such contemplation or proposal should be put to the employee concerned and provide an opportunity to such employee to offer an explanation. It is also a settled law that for such explanation which is offered by an employee in response to the proposed adverse action, the Authority is duty-bound to consider such explanation in an 'objective' manner with proper 'application of mind' and then pass a reasoned order which shall include the basis for proposing an adverse action and the reasoning as to why the Authority is not satisfied with the explanation that is given by employee before finally passing the adverse order. 23. In the present case, the Respondent No.1 University has given an offer to the Writ Petitioner to post him as Associate Dean in College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur vide Proceedings dtd. 10/9/2018 (Ex.P.3). The Writ Petitioner submitted a Representation dtd. 15/9/2018 (Ex.P.4) (extracted supra) stating that he is unable to accept the offer on account of health issues suffered by his wife and also the nature of treatment. By Proceedings dtd. 20/9/2018, the Respondent No.1 University has cancelled the appointment of the Writ Petitioner as Associate Dean at Proddatur Veterinary College. At this stage, the Respondent No.1 University did not state whether the reasons given by the Writ Petitioner for declining the offer of Associate Dean are either valid and genuine; or, not genuine and therefore invalid. The amended Guideline No.7 does not contemplate any procedure for appreciating the reason on merit. At this stage, the Respondent No.1 University did not state whether the reasons given by the Writ Petitioner for declining the offer of Associate Dean are either valid and genuine; or, not genuine and therefore invalid. The amended Guideline No.7 does not contemplate any procedure for appreciating the reason on merit. Nevertheless, the communication made by the Respondent No.1 University after 14 months i.e., on 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6) would simply state that the reasons submitted by the Writ Petitioner for not accepting the assignment of Associate Dean at College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur are not valid and therefore, as a consequence, the candidature of the Writ Petitioner will not be considered in future for similar post in any constituent college of the University. It is already indicated by this Court that this Proceeding has not been challenged by the Writ Petitioner for a period of four years. For the first time, the Writ Petitioner challenged the appointment of the Unofficial Respondent No.4 vide Proceeding No.350054/Ser.I/2021 dtd. 30/10/2023 (Ex.P.1). 24. At this juncture, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Natwar Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement and Anr. : (2010) 13 SCC 255 , as regards the adherence to the principles of audi alteram partem, would become relevant. Para Nos.32 to 35 of the said Judgment are usefully extracted hereunder: "32. The real question that arises for consideration is whether the adjudicating authority even at the preliminary stage is required to furnish copies of all the documents in its possession to a noticee even for the purposes of forming an opinion as to whether any inquiry at all is required to be held. 33. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant pressed into service the doctrine of duty of adequate disclosure which according to him is an essential part of the principles of natural justice and doctrine of fairness. A bare reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rules do not support the plea taken by the appellants in this regard. Even the principles of natural justice do not require supply of documents upon which no reliance has been placed by the authority to set the law into motion. Supply of relied on documents based on which the law has been set into motion would meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice. Even the principles of natural justice do not require supply of documents upon which no reliance has been placed by the authority to set the law into motion. Supply of relied on documents based on which the law has been set into motion would meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice. No court can compel the authority to deviate from the statute and exercise the power in altogether a different manner than the prescribed one. 34. As noticed, a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided by the adjudicating authority in the manner prescribed for the purpose of imposing any penalty as provided for in the Act and not at the stage where the adjudicating authority is required merely to decide as to whether an inquiry at all be held into the matter. Imposing of penalty after the adjudication is fraught with grave and serious consequences and therefore, the requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposition of any such penalty is to be met. In contradistinction, the opinion formed by the adjudicating authority whether an inquiry should be held into the allegations made in the complaint are not fraught with such grave consequences and therefore the minimum requirement of a show-cause notice and consideration of cause shown would meet the ends of justice. A proper hearing always include, no doubt, a fair opportunity to those who are parties in the controversy for correcting or contradicting anything prejudicial to their view. 35. Lord Denning has added: (AC p. 337) "If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him: and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them." (See Kanda v. Govt. of Malaya)" 25. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him: and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them." (See Kanda v. Govt. of Malaya)" 25. In the above premise, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that the Proceeding issued by the Respondent No.1 University on 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6) is in gross violation of principles of Natural Justice for the following reasons: a) That the Respondent No.1 University did not communicate the adverse decision as regards the correctness of the reason given by the Writ Petitioner at the time of cancellation of the appointment vide Proceeding dtd. 20/9/2018 (Ex.P.5); b) The Respondent No.1 University has not indicated in the Proceeding dtd. 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6) as regards the nature of 'Enquiry' that it had undertaken and the outcome of the Enquiry to the effect that the reason indicated by the Writ Petitioner for declining the offer of Associate Dean is invalid; c) When the decision of the Respondent No.1 University is to the effect that the Writ Petitioner shall not be considered for appointment to any similar post in the future, such action which would adversely affect the service conditions of the Writ Petitioner, therefore, should have preceded by furnishing reasons and call for an explanation. d) There is inordinate delay on the part of Respondent No.1 University in communicating its decision that the reason given by the Writ Petitioner in his Representation dtd. 15/9/2018 (Ex.P.4) is invalid, inasmuch as the Respondent No.1 University has taken 14 months to communicate such decision. 26. Though the Memo No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dtd. 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6) is not under challenge, this Court holds that the said Proceedings are vitiated for violation of principles of Natural Justice and therefore, the same is set aside for the reasons indicated hereinabove. Additional Issue-'D': 27. While so saying, this Court would also hold that since the Writ Petitioner has slept over his right for a period of four years without challenging the Proceedings vide Memo No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dtd. 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6), the challenge made by the Writ Petitioner to the subsequent appointment of the Unofficial Respondent No.4 as Associate Dean of NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram, vide Proc.No.350054/Ser.I/2021 dtd. 30/10/2023 (Ex.P1) cannot be entertained. 9/12/2019 (Ex.P.6), the challenge made by the Writ Petitioner to the subsequent appointment of the Unofficial Respondent No.4 as Associate Dean of NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram, vide Proc.No.350054/Ser.I/2021 dtd. 30/10/2023 (Ex.P1) cannot be entertained. As a consequence, the Respondent No.1 University shall only consider the candidature of the Writ Petitioner for all appointments to the posts of Associate Dean and similar posts in the future but shall not affect the appointment of the Unofficial Respondent No.4 as Associate Dean of NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram vide Proc.No.350054/Ser.I/2021 dtd. 30/10/2023 (Ex.P1). Issue-'B': 28. It is again made clear that since the validity of Guideline No.7 has not been challenged, this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the validity or otherwise of Guideline No.7 and that the same shall be considered in an appropriate proceedings in future. CONCLUSION: i) The Proceeding dtd. 9/12/2019 vide Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008 (Ex.P.6) is set aside, but prospectively for the reasons aforesaid; ii) Since the Proceeding dtd. 9/12/2019 vide Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008 (Ex.P.6) is set aside, the Respondent No.1 is at liberty to consider the validity of the reasons stated by the Writ Petitioner in the Representation dtd. 15/9/2018 (Ex.P.4) in accordance with law and by strictly adhering to principles of Natural Justice which includes prior Notice with disclosure of full facts, objective consideration of the explanation and a reasoned final order; iii) This Court is not inclined to interfere with the appointment of the Unofficial Respondent No.4 vide Proceedings bearing Proc.No.350054/Ser.I/2021, dtd. 30/10/2023 (Ex.P.1) and, iv) The Writ Petitioner is entitled for being appointed as Associate Dean or similar post in the future in any of the constituent Colleges under Respondent No.1. 29. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. 30. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.