Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 846 (AP)

N. ravi v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-07-26

K MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : K Manmadha Rao, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “……to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing/absorbing in aided vacant posts by duly taking uninterrupted 7 years of Service as Full time Contract Lecturer in Law of the petitioners and failed to extend the benefit of orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.620 Higher Education Department, Dated 21.8.2012 by duly taking appropriate action on the common representation dated 29.6.2021, 23.9.2021 and 6.11.2021 to unable the petitioners to apply for the Post of Associate Professor/Professor as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and violation of Principles of Natural Justice consequently direct the respondents to regularize/absorb the services of the petitioners in aided vacant posts in terms similar orders passed in G.O.Rt.No 620 Higher Education Department Dated 21.8.2012 (VR Law College) and also on the same analogy of orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.12 Higher Education (CE-A2) Department dated 10.3.2021 by considering the similar orders passed in W.P.No.12224 of 2021 and pass….” 2. Heard Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education for the respondents. 3. The facts of the case are that all the petitioners herein working as Un-aided Lecturers on contract basis in V.R.Law College, Nellore and have completed 7 years without any break in service. All the petitioners submitted a consolidated representation to the respondents and seeking for regularization/ absorption of their services into grant-in-aid vacant post of Lecturer in V.R. College in terms of G.O.Rt.No.620 HE dated 21.08.2012, as was done to the previous Lecturers in the same college. When the Government cancelled the grant-in-aid to the V.R. Law College, vide G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 31.10.2001, the teaching Staff approached this Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court and got restored the grain-in-aid to the college. Subsequently, there is no cancellation, as of now. It is further stated that, Dr.G.Sridhar, Lecturer who is working along with the petitioners herein has filed W.P.No.12224 of 2021 and this Court has disposed of the same by directing the respondents to consider his absorption in terms of similar consideration. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 with leave petition explaining the reasons for the delay of filing counter affidavit. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 with leave petition explaining the reasons for the delay of filing counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit while denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that in pursuance of the orders, the Government after hearing all the interested parties has issued G.O.Ms.No.212 Higher Education (UE.II) Department, dated 14.11.2007. It is mainly stated that the Government have stopped the Grand-in-aid after 1984-85 as the Management of the College made a representation to the Government that the college has attained self- sufficiency and the fee income realized from the students being more than the expenditure. Aggrieved by the same, some of the teaching staff have filed W.P.No.20478 of 1996 before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 13.08.1999 directing the Government to release necessary Grant-in-aid to the V.R.Law College to meet the expenditure on salaries and continue to release the same until G.O.Ms.No.485, dated 19.06.1980 is in operation. Accordingly the 3rd respondent has requested the Government to allow them to run their institution with their own funds without looking for grant-in-aid from Government, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.113, Education, dated 31.10.2001 has withdrawn Grant-in-aid with effect from 01.04.1985. Challenging the same, some of the teaching staff of the College have filed W.P.No.4009 of 2000 and W.P.No.7284 of 2002 before this Court and the same were disposed of vide a common judgment dated 23.09.2003 and directed the Government to release the Grant-in-aid to 3rd respondent to meet the salaries and other allowances on par with all other similarly situated lecturers working in Government Degree Colleges. 5. Assailing the said orders, the Government has filed S.L.P.No.21387 of 2004 and 21388 of 2004 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 23.03.2007, the Apex Court has granted liberty to the Managing Committee of the College to approach the State Government by making an application for release of the Grant-in-Aid to the College and directed the State Government to take necessary decision. Pursuant to the said orders, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 14.11.2007 by rejecting the request of the management of the 3rd respondent for release of Grant-in-aid for payment of salaries of the teaching staff working in the College. Subsequently the S.L.P was dismissed. 6. Pursuant to the said orders, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 14.11.2007 by rejecting the request of the management of the 3rd respondent for release of Grant-in-aid for payment of salaries of the teaching staff working in the College. Subsequently the S.L.P was dismissed. 6. After dismissal of the said SLP, the petitioners in WP No.4009 of 2000 and 7284 of 2002 have represented the Government to implement the order dated 23.09.2003, the Government after examining the total issue, issued G.O.Ms.No.620 HE (UE.II) Department, dated 21.08.2012 to meet the salaries and other allowances to the petitioners on par with all other similarly situated Lecturers working in government Degree Colleges in accordance with the said orders. Therefore, it is submitted that the Government Orders in G.O.Rt No.620 HE (UE.II) Department, dated 21.8.2012 are confined only to the petitioners in WP Nos.4009 of 2000 and 7284 of 2002 to the extent of release of Grant-in-id but cannot be generalized, which was also communicated to the 3rd respondent dated 21.08.2012 for taking necessary action and an amount of Rs. 2,84,71,913/- was released towards salaries of seven lecturers on par lecturers working in the Government Degree Colleges. 7. Insofar as the plea of the petitioners herein to consider their case on the similar lines of Sri G.Sridhar is concerned, it is stated that, Sri G.Sridhar, Contract Lecturer in Law, V.R Law College, (Un-aided), Nellore has filed WP No.12224 of 2021 before this Court for regularization of his services against Grant-in-aid post and this Court has disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner to regularize of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 23.07.2006 on the same analogy of similar consideration effected in G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10.03.2021 and pass appropriate orders. As per orders dated 01.08.2022 the 2nd respondent in CCE’s Procs.Rc.No.74/PAC-Zone- III/2022, dated 20.09.2022 while explaining the circumstances under which the petitioner does not come under the purview of the orders in G.O.Ms.No.620 directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner accordingly. However, the 3rd respondent did not consider the same. It is further contended that in the absence of Grant-in-Aid to the college, it is not possible to regularize the services of the petitioners who were engaged by the Management of an Un-Aided college during 2013, into Grantin- aid. However, the 3rd respondent did not consider the same. It is further contended that in the absence of Grant-in-Aid to the college, it is not possible to regularize the services of the petitioners who were engaged by the Management of an Un-Aided college during 2013, into Grantin- aid. Hence, the plea of the petitioners not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents made in the petition, the matter is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12224 of 2021, dated 01.08.2022, and hence, requests this Court to pass similar order in this petition also. 9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education opposed for allowing the writ petition. While denying the contents made by the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterated the contents made in the counter. He mainly contended that the Grant-in-Aid once withdrawn was not restored by the Government at any point of time. Thus, V.R. Law College for all practical purposes is an Un- Aided Institution for the present. In the absence of Grant-in-Aid to the college, it is not possible to regularize the services of the petitioners who were engaged by the Manager, hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and by following the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.12224 of 2021, dated 01.08.2022, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the common representation of the petitioners dated 29.06.2021, 23.09.2021 and 06.11.2021 to regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 27.03.2006 on the same analogy of similar consideration effected in G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 10.03.2021 and pass appropriate orders, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.