Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 141 (AP)

Dr. K. Rajamanikyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-24

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2025
ORDER: WP Nos.1834 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “…. to issue Writ order or orders specially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in not appointing the petitioner as Principal incharge / FAC and appointing the 5th respondent as Principal in charge / FAC in 4th respondent College is illegal arbitrary unconstitutional in violation of Article 14, 19, 21 of the constitution and also in utter violation of the A P Collegiate Education Services Special rules issued in GO MS No 127 dated 07.06.1993 and also the seniority list prepared in the month of December 2020 by the 4th respondent College and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner as a Principal incharge / FAC till the regular selections are made in the 4th respondent College and pass……” WP No.13001 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “…. to issue appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned communication in LrRc No 205/Admn IB/20211 dated 01.07.2021 in directing the Management Governing Body of SPMH College Machilipatnam to suspend Sri D G Sastry from the Correspondentship of the College and appointing the Principal Government Degree College Pamarru as Special Officer is illegal unjust arbitrary unwarranted and offends the petitioners right guaranteed under Article 19 1 g of the Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the same and pass …” WP No.13003 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “…. to issue appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned communication in Lr.Rc.No.205/Admn IB/20211 dated 01.07.2021 in directing the Management Governing Body of SPMH College Machilipatnam to suspend Sri D G Sastry from the Correspondentship of the College and appointing the Principal Government Degree College Pamarru as Special Officer is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, unwarranted and offends the petitioners right guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the same and pass….” 2. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 3. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 3. Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.1834 of 2021 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner studied M.A in English.In the year 2002 the 4th respondent college herein issued notification calling for the applications from the eligible candidates for filling up of the Aided Back- log vacancies. As the petitioner is fully qualified to hold the post of lecturer in English, she has made an application along with others. After following the due process, she was selected and appointed as lecturer in English by proceedings dated 18-01-2002. It is stated that, in the year 2017, the management of the 4th respondent college circulated the seniority list on 19.08.2017. In the said seniority list, the petitioner was figured at Serial No. 5. The 5 th respondent herein is figured at Serial No.6. In the year 2017, itself the post of Principal was fell vacant after attaining the age of superannuation of the regular Principal. The management without following the due procedure contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.127, dated 07.06.1993, appointed the 5th respondent herein as in-charge/ FAC Principal. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation to the 2 nd respondent herein on 16.10.2017, with a request for considering her candidature for the appointment of Principal in- charge / FAC. In pursuance of the same, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, directed the Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Vijayawada, A.P and also the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Rajamundry to verify the action of the correspondent of the 4 th respondent college. It is further stated that on 13.03.2018 the Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education after getting the remarks and after going through the enquiry report and also after taking the assurance from the 4th respondent college directed the concerned Government Degree college, Vijayawada to pass the Salary bills to the Staff of 4 th respondent college in view of the ending of the financial year 2018. Thereafter, the management has submitted a proposal for filling up of the post of Principal on regular basis. After getting permission, one Smt. CH. Thereafter, the management has submitted a proposal for filling up of the post of Principal on regular basis. After getting permission, one Smt. CH. Naga rani, who is figured at Sl.No.2 in the Seniority list appointed as a Principal after attaining the age of superannuation retired on 31-12-2020. Immediately once again the management of the 4 th respondent college appointed the 5 th respondent herein as in-charge / FAC Principal. Once again, the management has committed the mistake in appointing her junior as in-charge Principal, in those circumstances, it is stated that in the year 2013 itself the then Commissioner of Collegiate Education has issued proceeding in RC. No.289/Admn. 1-2/2013, dated 30.12.2013, in which, directing all the Regional Joint Directors of Collegiate Education for fixing the Inter Se-Seniority among the lecturers for the purpose of seniority by considering the date of admission into Grant-in-aid as criteria. It is stated that, in the month of December 2020, the management of the college prepared the seniority list of lecturers working in the college. In the said seniority list the petitioner’s name is figured at Serial No.4, the 5th respondent name is placed at Serial No.5, as per the memo issued by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education the management should have considered her name for the post of Principal in-charge but the management ignoring the said memo and also in utter violation of the instructions given by the authorities appointed the 5 th respondent as Principal in-charge is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also in violation of the G.O.Ms.No.127, dated 07.06.1993. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. This Court vide order dated 19.02.2021 in WP No.1834 of 2021 has directed the respondents to convene a DPC meeting for appointment to the post of Principal under intimation to this Court. 6. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.4. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, in obedience to the orders of this Hon'ble Court, the Secretary & Correspondent of the 4th respondent college convened the DPC as set out herein below. The Secretary & Correspondent of 4th respondent college vide letter dated 08.03.2021 requested the 3rd respondent-Regional Joint Director for his consent for conducting the DPC. The Secretary & Correspondent of 4th respondent college vide letter dated 08.03.2021 requested the 3rd respondent-Regional Joint Director for his consent for conducting the DPC. The 3rd respondent expressed his convenience for attending DPC on 18.3.2021 at 11.00 A.M. However, the nominee of Krishna University, Machilipatnam expressed his inconvenience to attend DPC on 18.03.2021 on administrative reasons and preoccupied academic schedule. Though the DPC was convened well within the time granted by this Hon'ble Court, it could not conducted for this reason. It is further stated that after elaborate deliberations among all three members of DPC, they could not concur on the final decision. Further, they recorded separate reasons in the minutes and the minutes were drawn. It is further stated that the Secretary & Correspondent of the 4th respondent college and the University nominee signed the said minutes and then the file was forwarded to 3rd respondent-Regional Joint Director for his signature. Though considerable time has elapsed, the said file has not been received by the Secretary & Correspondent of the 4th respondent college, duly signed by Regional Joint Director, for taking further action. It is recently learnt that Sri David Kumar Swamy, the Regional Joint Director who attended the D.P.C. on26.04.201 has been transferred and he has been relieved from the office of the 3rd respondent. It is further stated that recently it appears that the writ petitioner who is also within the zone of consideration is not keeping good health, as is seen from the letters addressed by her. It appears that she has been suffering from severe gynaec problem and is taking medicines regularly and that after medical checkup and medical advice she may undergo surgery. Further it is stated that the husband of the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Management of 4 th respondent College that she is suffering fromhigh fever further on 22.6.2021 she brought to notice of Secretary & Correspondent that she was tested positive for Covid-19 and applied for medical leave for 15 days as she has to observe Home Quarantine. So, further steps for convening DPC once again will be initiated after the petitioner gains normal health and recovering fully from her illness, as she is alone one of the eligible candidates within the zone of consideration. So, further steps for convening DPC once again will be initiated after the petitioner gains normal health and recovering fully from her illness, as she is alone one of the eligible candidates within the zone of consideration. The Secretary & Correspondent of the 4 th respondent College has convened the DPC to be held on 18.3.2021 and again on 26.4.2021 as per orders of this Court dated 19.2.2021 as extended by orders dated 20.4.2021 in the writ petition. 7. The 5th respondent has also filed counter affidavit in WP No.1834 of 2021 and stated that Smt.Usha Rani was appointed as in-charge Principal initially from 1.4.2017 to 22.08.2017 and due to health reasons she represented to relieve her from that post, which was acceded to. Then this respondent candidature was considered duly following the procedure contemplated. It is stated that that there is no deviation in the present case and there is no violation of the Memo no.23/ADmn.1-2/2017 dated 14-3-2017. It is further stated that the writ petitioner is unnecessarily casting aspersions on the management as well as this respondent, for the reasons best known to herself. It is further stated that there is absolutely no truth in the contentions raised and the allegations made by the writ petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner is a petition monger and the then Joint Director of Collegiate education was misled and hence the order dated 15-12-2017. It is stated that in the enquiry conducted by the RJD, records were verified, the management gave suitably reply and the issue was resolved. The contention that the management committed mistake in appointing this respondent as In-charge Principal is not correct. It is stated that this respondent holds the requisite qualifications and as she proved her mettle as In-charge Principal and the Principal FAC, earlier, this respondent was made in-charge principal now. It is also relevant here to mention that this respondent is the only candidate who is drawing UGC pay scales, from the inception and the procedure in vogue, in the State of AP, is to appoint the candidate who is drawing UGC scales to the post of Principal. The allegation that there is violation of G.O.Ms.No.127, dated 07-06-1993 is absolutely incorrect. The allegation that there is violation of G.O.Ms.No.127, dated 07-06-1993 is absolutely incorrect. It is further stated that the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of Principal and hence she cannot question appointment of this respondent as In-charge Principal, which is a stop gap arrangement for the smooth functioning of the College. The college duly followed the rules and memos issued by the Government in appointing this respondent as Incharge Principal. Therefore there are no grounds in this writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. Thereafter, the Management of Sri Padmavathi Mahila Hindu Degree Kalasala i.e., 4 th respondent in WP No.1834 of 2021 has filed two writ petitions vide WP No.13001 and 13003 of 2021 seeking declaring the impugned communication in LrRc No.205/Admn.I-B/2021-1 dated 01.07.2021 in directing the Management (Governing Body) of SPMH College, Machilipatnam to suspend Sri D.G.Sastry from the correspondent ship of the college and appointing the Principal Government Degree College, Pamarru as illegal and arbitrary and also declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc No.205/Admn.I- B/2021-2 dated 01.07.2021 placing the 4 th respondent i.e., petitioner in WP No.1834 of 2021 as FAC in post of Principal of SPMHK Machilipatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. 8. Heard Sri G. Elisha and Sri A. Veeraswamy, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the respondents. 9. On hearing, Sri G. Elisha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No.1834 of 2021 while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that the petitioner left over from the Institution i.e., Sree Padmavathi Mahila Hindu Degree Kalasala and now she is working somewhere else. Therefore learned counsel submits that, nothing survives in the present writ petition and it may be closed. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP No.13001 and 13003 also submits that, as the cause in the present writ petitions do not survive and prayed to close the same 11. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents does not refute the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. 12. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP No.13001 and 13003 also submits that, as the cause in the present writ petitions do not survive and prayed to close the same 11. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents does not refute the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. 12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner in WP No.1834 of 2021, who is 4 th respondent in other writ petitions i.e., WP No.13301 and 13303 of 2021 has already been left over from the subject institution and is working in somewhere else, this Court feels that, the cause in the present writ petitions do not survive for further adjudication and the same are liable to be closed. 13. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are closed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.