Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 785 (AP)

Bollavaram Giddaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-06-27

KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

body2025
ORDER : Kiranmayee Mandava, J. Heard Sri Subramanyam Daraboina, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for School Education and Sri Mahesh Kumar Kancharla, learned counsel for the 5 th respondent. 2. The issue involved in all these ten writ petitions is common, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of all the writ petitions through this common order. 3. The relief sought by the writ petitioners in the writ petition is for a direction to the 1 st to 5 th respondents to absorb the services of the petitioners against the aided vacancies in the respondent college. 4. The petitioners were appointed as lecturers in 5 th respondent college by the appointment committee of the said college. The said appointment was pursuant to the advertisement given in the newspapers. All the petitioners were appointed in backlog vacancies reserved for SC-ST candidates. The details of their appointment i.e., the date of appointment of the petitioners in all the writ petitions, are as follows: Sl. No. W.P.No. Petitioners Name Date of Appointment 1. WP/15006/2021 1. Bollavaram Giddaiah 1. Lecturer in Telugu since 16/06/2012 2. Nakkili Rojamma 2. Lecturer in Political Science since 03/08/2015 2. WP 35754/2014 1.S. Suneetha Rose Lecturer in English since 01/07/2004 3. WP/35755/2014 1. N. Sai Nirmala Lecturer in Commerce since 01/08/2006 4. WP/36046/2014 1. Smt. U.L. Vijaya Kumari Lecturer in Telugu since 24/09/1993 5. WP/38052/2016 1. K.V. Santha Kumari Lecturer in Computer since 07/09/1995 6. WP/38181/2016 1. G. Margaret Rose Lecturer in Commerce since 10/07/1998 7. WP/19113/2017 1. Baki Sowjanya Shilpa Lecturer in Commerce since 04/08/2007 8. WP/19118/2017 1. Mrs. Bankala Dhanyavathi Lecturer in Commerce since 27/08/2008 9. WP/19754/2017 1. Mrs. V. Suneetha Lecturer in Political Science since 02/07/2008 10. WP/30458/2018 1. S. Soba Monica Lecturer in Computer Science since 27/08/2009 5. It is contended that the petitioners have been working as lecturers in different subjects in the respondent college on consolidated pay. The petitioners were appointed in an aided vacancy as unaided lecturers in the backlog vacancies reserved for SCs, and their selection was made through proper selection procedure by the appointing committee after an advertisement was issued in the newspaper. It is contended that the petitioners have been working as lecturers in different subjects in the respondent college on consolidated pay. The petitioners were appointed in an aided vacancy as unaided lecturers in the backlog vacancies reserved for SCs, and their selection was made through proper selection procedure by the appointing committee after an advertisement was issued in the newspaper. It is further contended that the Government, as long back as in 2001 vide proceedings dated 18.09.2001, directed the Director of Collegiate Education to verify the communal roster books/registers of the list of colleges, annexed to the said proceedings, identify the backlog vacancies of SCs/STs of teaching and non-teaching staff with effect from 10.03.1999, to enable the department to accord necessary permission to the management of colleges concerned, to fill up the posts of backlog vacancies of SCs/STs in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.214 dated 08.05.2001, the respondent college is shown at Sl.No.29 in the said list. Thus, the appointment of the petitioners is stated to against aided vacancies. 6. It is contended by the petitioners that the services of the petitioners are the same or similar to that of the services of lecturers appointed through the regular selection process. It is further stated that the petitioners, apart from discharging regular teaching duties, have also been assigned with correction of answer sheets of the degree examinations. When there is no dissimilarity between the discharge of duties by the lecturers appointed by following a regular selection process and the petitioners, and when their appointment is also against the aided vacancy, the petitioners should not be denied the benefits of pay scale attached to the post of the aided post. Since a ban was imposed on the recruitment of aided vacancies pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 27.03.2006, the aided vacancies have remained unfilled, compelling colleges to appoint lecturers on consolidated wages. Having imposed a ban on the recruitment of aided vacancies, the Government did not take any measures to absorb the persons appointed against these aided vacancies. 7. The 1 st and 2 nd respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the appointment of the petitioners was not made through the selection process. No advertisement, as such, was issued by the colleges for appointment before the petitioners were appointed. 7. The 1 st and 2 nd respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the appointment of the petitioners was not made through the selection process. No advertisement, as such, was issued by the colleges for appointment before the petitioners were appointed. It is further contended that taking into consideration, the decline in the student enrollment into private aided educational institutions, the Government constituted a committee vide G.O.Rt.No.52 dated 06.04.2021 to study performance of aided educational institutions. Pursuant to the report of the said committee, the Government has prescribed a policy for voluntarily taking over aided colleges subject to their willingness. Pursuant to the said policy, it is stated that 124 aided degree colleges gave consent to surrender their grant-in-aid by surrendering aided staff to the Government, including the petitioners’ college. Thus, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.135 dated 01.09.2021 accepted the request of the management of the college to surrender their grant-in-aid surrendering of the sanctioned aided posts of teaching and non-teaching staff to the Government. The Government has accorded permission. Thus, it is stated the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners cannot be considered for regularization, it would be the responsibility of the respective college management for payment of their salary. It is further stated that the petitioners are not entitled to claim grant-in-aid, since the petitioners were never appointed as per the selection process, the petitioners are not entitled regularization/absorption. It is further stated by the respondents that the petitioners are not even entitled to the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 since the petitioners were appointed after the cut off date i.e., 25.11.1993 and the petitioners were well aware that the appointments are subject to regular basis. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there was a ban for appointment in the aided vacancy in private junior and degree colleges, the subject ban was not made applicable to SC and ST backlog vacancies. The 5 th respondent college is Minority Christian Institution. The college vide its several representations had requested the 1 st and 2 nd respondents to accord permission to fill up the existing aided vacancies of SC and ST candidates. Further, the learned counsel relies on the decision of Division Bench in W.P.No.3129 of 2021 and the decision of this Court in W.P.No.3968 of 2020. The college vide its several representations had requested the 1 st and 2 nd respondents to accord permission to fill up the existing aided vacancies of SC and ST candidates. Further, the learned counsel relies on the decision of Division Bench in W.P.No.3129 of 2021 and the decision of this Court in W.P.No.3968 of 2020. In W.P.No.3968 of 2020, this Court following the decision in the case of the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab., , [ (2016) 4 SCC 1 ] it is observed as under: “15. After considering the ratio in Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab this Court is in agreement with the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners. The Writ Petitioners would be entitled to Minimum Time Scale in as much as the Writ Petitioners are also performing the similar duties as that of their counterparts having regular jobs. No material has been placed on record by the Respondent No.3 to indicate that the Writ Petitioners are not performing the duties which are similar to their regular counterparts who are on regular employment. The Writ Petitioners would therefore be entitled for Minimum Time Scale. However, though the Writ Petitioners have been employed on several dates and that the present Writ Petition is filed in the year 2020 and as per the dictum of the Apex Court, the entitlement for the Minimum Time Scale shall be limited only for the last three years before the date of filing of the Writ Petition.” 9. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners have been selected through the selection process by the college in aided vacancies and thus have discharged their duties all the while for a paltry sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus, prays that the petitioners be absorbed into service in aided vacancy in the alternative grant of minimum time scale. 10. Learned Government Pleader contended that the proposal for absorption should come from the college. Thus, prays that the petitioners be absorbed into service in aided vacancy in the alternative grant of minimum time scale. 10. Learned Government Pleader contended that the proposal for absorption should come from the college. Since the petitioners have been appointed after the promulgation of the cut off date prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994) are provided for regularization of services of the individuals who were appointed on temporary basis on or before 25.11.1993 and have completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993 are eligible for regularization, since the petitioners were appointed after the said date the benefits of the said G.O., they are not entitled for regularization. Post enactment of Act 2 of 1994, the Government issued two G.Os in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.283 dated 03.11.1999. The said G.Os were time bound and were in operation for six months, for regularization as one time measure. It is further contended that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma devi also would not apply to the petitioners, since the petitioners have not completed 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006. Learned Government Pleader further relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L.Kesari submits that if the appointment of a person is without possessing minimum qualifications for the post and if the same is duly made without the sanctioned vacant posts, are illegal and thus cannot be regularized since they did not possess requisite qualifications for the post. 11. Learned Government Pleader further draws the attention of the Court, the decision Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1193 of 2023 and batch and submits that the plea of regularization as a matter of course cannot be granted as a direction for consideration of the case of the petitioners, cannot be any omnibus direction to consider the cases. 12. Considered the rival submissions. 13. Having regard to the fact that the college has been regularly corresponding with the department for regularization of the petitioners in aided vacancies since 2011, and the respondents cannot shirk the responsibility on the pretext that the appointment of the petitioners was not as per the selection process having extracted from them all the while on payment of meagre sums. Having regard to the fact that the college has been regularly corresponding with the department for regularization of the petitioners in aided vacancies since 2011, and the respondents cannot shirk the responsibility on the pretext that the appointment of the petitioners was not as per the selection process having extracted from them all the while on payment of meagre sums. The constitutional mandate is that everyone is entitled to equal pay for equal work. When it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have failed to discharge their duties as were assigned to them, the respondents cannot avoid the constitutional mandate that is cast upon them. 14. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Division Bench Decision of this Court in W.A.No.1193 of 2023 and batch, wherein it has been observed as follows: “11. ……The case of each of the respondent/employees has to be considered individually on merits and appropriate orders must be passed against each of the employee. There cannot be an omnibus consideration of the cases of the respondents and it is not expected that the State shall pass an omnibus order in the cases of all similarly placed employees who are seeking regularization. The State has to consider each case of the employee duly taking into account their terms of employment and whether the private colleges have followed the procedure stipulated under the GO for selecting the respondents. The State ought to also consider the terms and conditions of employment before passing the detailed order. The respondents shall submit individual applications to the appellants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The respondents shall also submit the relevant annexures, such as, the appointment letter, service record if any available with the respondents and any other document relating to their claim for absorption into aided posts.” 15. Having regard to the same and for the reasons stated above, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions placing reliance on the decision in W.A.No.1193 of 2023. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the following directions: (1) The writ petitioners shall make individual applications, to the respondents seeking absorption into aided vacancy within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the following directions: (1) The writ petitioners shall make individual applications, to the respondents seeking absorption into aided vacancy within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. The petitioners shall also annex to the applications the letter of appointment, service record, if any, available with them. Upon filing of the said applications, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on the applications, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. (2) It is pertinent to observe further that, if at all, the respondents find that the petitioners are not entitled for absorption into grant-in-aid posts, taking into consideration the alternate plea advanced by the petitioners for grant of minimum time scale, this Court directs the respondents to grant minimum time scale to the petitioners with effect from three (3) years prior to the date of the filing of the writ petitions. The arrears of minimum time scale thus computed shall be paid within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.