HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2020
and
Interlocutory Application No.3 of 2020
in / and
Writ Petition No.21366 of 2020
COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
The composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into the
new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh
pursuant to the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014 (for short, 'the Act')
w.e.f. 02.06.2014.
2. The Telugu Academy (7th respondent) was a Society registered
under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act on 31.12.1968 in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh with Head Office in Hyderabad ( which is the new state of Telangana) and Regional and Sub-centers throughout the composite State of Andhra Pradesh ( i.e in the area now covered by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh).
3. It is an Institution mentioned at Serial No.51 of Schedule - X to the Act whose staff, assets and liabilities have not yet been divided among or allocated to the successor States i.e., the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh under the ::2:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020 provisions of the Act though more than six and a half years have elapsed since the coming into force of the Act on 02.06.2014.
4. According to the counter filed by the Higher Education Department of State of Telangana (respondent no.3) and the Special Chief secretary of the said department who is also Vice-Chairman of the 7th respondent (respondent no.6), it is functioning under the control of the Government of Telangana. Respondent no.11 is the current Director of the Telugu Academy, Hyderabad.
5. The State of Andhra Pradesh (respondent no.4) had established its own Telugu Academy (respondent no.10) on 26.06.2020 under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, after the bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh with Head office in Chittoor District of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent no.8 is the Chairperson and Respondent No.9 is its Vice-Chairman.
6. The petitioners had been appointed by the 7th respondent on contract / daily-wage basis as Data Entry Operators and Hamalis and have been working from 2002 onwards.
7. In Lr.No.185,189/TA/RTI Act/2017-3 dt.15.11.2017 issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the 7th respondent, it is certified that service of -
i) petitioner No.1 was utilized from 08.05.2008 continuously, ::3:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020
ii) petitioner No.2 was utilized from 12.06.2012 continuously,
iii) petitioner No.3 was utilized from 09.01.2014 continuously,
iv) petitioner No.4 was utilized from 05.09.2003 continuously,
v) petitioner No.5 was utilized from 01.05.2012 continuously,
vi) petitioner No.6 was utilized from 14.05.2012 continuously,
vii) petitioner No.7 was utilized from 01.06.2014 continuously,
viii) petitioner No.8 was utilized from 27.07.2002 continuously,
ix) petitioner No.9 was utilized from 01.10.2012 continuously,
x) petitioner No.10 was utilized from 18.11.2002 continuously,
xi) petitioner No.11 was utilized from 05.10.2005 continuously,
xii) petitioner No.12 was utilized from 01.10.2012 continuously,
xiii) petitioner No.13 was utilized from 20.07.2002 continuously,
xiv) petitioner No.14 was utilized from 04.11.2011 continuously,
xv) petitioner No.15 was utilized from 17.10.2012 continuously, xvi) petitioner No.16 was utilized from 11.02.2013 continuously, xvii) petitioner No.17 was utilized from 01.05.2003 continuously.
The said proceeding shows that only meager wages were paid either on daily wage basis or monthly basis. At pages 39 to 42 of the ::4:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020 Writ Petition, the service details of the petitioners have been furnished.
W.P.No.28404 of 2017
8. Petitioners contend that they were engaged directly by the 7th respondent as Data Entry Operators and Hamalies, that there is employer and employee relationship between them and the 7th respondent, that they are qualified to hold the posts and are discharging their duties continuously from the date of their appointment till the date of filing of the Writ Petition. They contend that Hamalies are categorized as skilled, semi skilled and unskilled depending on the nature of the duties they perform; while skilled Hamalies maintain the records and undertake other office works, semi skilled and unskilled Hamalies do the work of loading and unloading of books sent from the Head Office, packing and dispatching them to various colleges and book sellers in the entire District. They contend that Data Entry Operators are paid consolidated salary as per Government Orders and Hamalies are paid wages fixed by the District Collectors from time to time.
9. Since employees of the 7th respondent are not allocated between the successor entities, i.e., the 10th respondent and the 7th respondent even after 02.06.2014, they are under the administrative control of the 7th respondent and their salaries were paid from the date of appointment till November, 2019 by 7th respondent though all ::5:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020 petitioners are working in the Regional Centres situated in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.
10. They allege that the 7th respondent because of the Andhra nativity of the petitioners refused to pay enhanced salary/wages to petitioners from 2013 while granting the same to those employed in the Regional Centres in the State of Telangana and the Head Office situated at Hyderabad.
11. Petitioner nos.1, 11 and one T. Samuel Raju, who were working as Data Entry Operators at Guntur Branch Office of the 7th respondent in the State of Andhra Pradesh had filed W.P.No.28404 of 2017 challenging the action of the 7th respondent and its Director, the 11th respondent herein for not paying enhanced remuneration of Rs.15,000/- per month to them though they were working continuously from the date of their respective appointments for more than 10 to 12 years and getting pay of only Rs.9,500/- per month. They contended that similar employees engaged by the 7th respondent in the territorial jurisdiction of Telangana were paid Rs.15,000/- by extending benefit of G.O.Ms.No.14 dt.19.02.2016 which dealt with enhancement of monthly remuneration of contract / out-sourced employees to Rs.15,000/- from Rs.9,500/- per month. They contended that they were being discriminated against.
12. By order dt.08.07.2019, W.P.No.38404 of 2017 was allowed by this Court and a direction was given to the 7th respondent to pay the ::6:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020 enhanced remuneration of Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioners in the said Writ Petition with all consequential benefits holding that the 7th respondent cannot discriminate against the petitioners on the ground that they were not working in the territorial jurisdiction of the Telangana region.
Impugned proceedings No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019
13. Petitioners contend that the 11th respondent, who is the Director of the 7th respondent, got offended by the said order and decided to punish the petitioners for approaching the High Court and so, he decided to out-source the services of loading and unloading which is done by the Hamalis and the services of Data Entry Operators to an out-sourcing agency and issued proceedings No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019 on behalf of the 7th respondent, even though they had been working directly on contract/daily wage basis with the 7th respondent right from 2002.
Contentions of petitioners
14. According to petitioners, this was done with a deliberate intention to snap the employee - employer relationship in the first instance and eventually to discontinue the services of those working in the Regional Centers situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
::7:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_21366_2020
15. They allege that they were asked to give Aadhaar, PAN Card and two photographs to the identified out-sourcing agencies for enrolment by them, and since the intention of the respondent nos.7 and 11 was suspected to be to ultimately discontinue their services, they did not furnish the said documents to the agency and consequently the 7th respondent directed the In-charges of the Regional Centers not to pay petitioners' wages from 01.12.2019.
16. Petitioners not only challenge the proceedings No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019 issued by the 7th respondent on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to do so as per the Telugu Academy Rules, 1968 which confer such power only on the Board of Governors of the Academy, but also seek bifurcation of the 7th respondent between the successor States under Section 82 of the Act.
17. Petitioners rely on decision dt.07.08.2020 in B. Sambasiva Rao vs. State of Telangana1 in relation to A.P. State Residential Educational Institution Society established in the combined State which is also an Institution mentioned at Serial No.41 of the Schedule
- X to the Act in respect of which certain directions had been issued by this Court for the allocation of employees between the successor entities set up by both States, i.e., AP Residential Educational Institution Society (APREIS) and Telangana Residential Educational 1 Order dt.07.08.2020 in W.P.No.7225 of 2020 & batch (D.B.) ::8:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020 Institution Society (TREIS) and seek similar directions in regard to the Telugu Academy also.
Interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.21366 of 2020
18. On 07.12.2020, in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.21366 of 2020, the following interim order was passed :
"Pending further orders, proceedings No.96/TA/Admn/2019 dt.07.12.2019 issued by 7th respondent, which appear to be wholly without jurisdiction having regard to Rule 8(2)(iii) of the Rules framed by the Telugu Academy is suspended.
List on 21.12.2020.
Counter shall be filed by the next date of hearing by 7th respondent."
I.A.No.3 of 2020
19. The respondent no.7 has filed I.A.No.3 of 2020 to vacate the above order.
20. We shall deal with the respective contentions of the parties as under.
Consideration by this Court
21. The fact that the Telugu Academy, Hyderabad is included in Schedule - X of the Act is admitted by the 7th respondent and also respondent nos.3 and 6.
::9:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_21366_2020
22. The respondent nos.3 and 6 however contend that as per Section 75 of the Act the Telugu Academy shall continue to provide facilities to people of both the successor States for such period and upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the two successor State Governments within a period of one year from the appointed day, or if no agreement is reached within that period within the period which may be fixed by order of the Central Government. It is their further case that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, i.e., respondent nos.2 and 4 had not reached any agreement with the Government of Telangana (respondent no.3), that the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh insisted the 7th respondent not to publish any books pertaining to the Intermediate Course and so, the 7th respondent had stopped publishing of such books for the State of Andhra Pradesh. So there is no work for the petitioners.
23. According to them, it is functioning under the control of Government of Telangana based on location basis and the Government of Andhra Pradesh had established its own Academy (respondent no.10) with Head Office in Tirupathi of Chittoor District.
24. Section 75 in our opinion, as its heading indicates, is a provision in the Act for continuance of facilities in certain State Institutions such as those specified in Schedule - X to the Act. It does not deal with allocation of employees of institutions such as the 7th respondent which is mentioned in the said Schedule.
::10:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_21366_2020
25. The relevant provision which deals with division of assets and liabilities of Schedule - X Institutions is Section 53 and the relevant provision dealing with allocation of employees of Schedule - X Institutions is Section 82 of the Act.
26. Section 53 states as under :
"53. (1) The assets and liabilities relating to any commercial or industrial undertaking of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh, where such undertaking or part thereof is exclusively located in, or its operations are confined to, a local area, shall pass to the State in which that area is included on the appointed day, irrespective of the location of its headquarters: Arrears of taxes. Right to recover loans and advances. Investments and credits in certain funds. Assets and liabilities of State undertakings.
Provided that where the operation of such undertaking becomes inter-State by virtue of the provisions of Part II, the assets and liabilities of--
(a) the operational units of the undertaking shall be apportioned between the two successor States on location basis; and
(b) the headquarters of such undertaking shall be apportioned between the two successor States on the basis of population ratio.
(2) Upon apportionment of the assets and liabilities, such assets and liabilities shall be transferred in physical form on mutual agreement or by making payment or adjustment through any other mode as may be agreed to by the successor States."
27. Section 82 states as under :
"On and from the appointed day, the employees of State Public Sector Undertakings, corporations and other autonomous bodies shall ::11:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020 continue to function in such undertaking, corporation or autonomous bodies for a period of one year and during this period the corporate body concerned shall determine the modalities for distributing the personnel between the two successor States."
28. In the decision of B. Sambasiva Rao (1 supra), this very Division Bench has held, following the decisions in G. Rama Mohan Rao and another vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another2, P.B. Karunakar and others vs. State of Telangana and others3, and Rani vs. Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department and others4, that only Section 82 governs distribution of employees of IX and X Schedule Bodies / Entities / Institutions and since the erstwhile APREIS is also mentioned at Serial No.41 of the X Schedule, the division of employees of the erstwhile APREIS is governed by Section 82 only, and that Section 77 of the Act has no application.
It held that the successor entities to the erstwhile APREIS i.e., the TREIS and the APREIS would have to agree upon the modalities for distributing the personnel of the erstwhile APREIS between them; and the State Governments of the new State of Telangana or the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh have no role in the fixing of modalities for distribution of the personnel between the TREIS and the APREIS.
2 2017 (6) A.L.D. 103 (D.B.) 3 2018 (3) A.L.D. 470 (D.B.) 4 2017 (4) A.L.T. 173 (D.B.) ::12:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020
It was also held that in the context of Section 82, the modalities for distributing the personnel between the two successor States can only mean the modalities for distributing the personnel between the two successor State Public Sector undertakings, Corporations and autonomous Bodies only and not distribution of such personnel between the respective State Governments, as that would make employees of such Corporations / Undertakings / Companies, etc., employees of the Governments of the two successor States.
It was also declared that Section 82 requires the Corporate bodies themselves to determine the modalities for distributing its personnel between the two successor States and that even after the period of one year from the appointed day, the concerned corporate bodies are not disabled from determining the modalities for distributing their personnel between the two successor States.
It was also declared that failure to complete the exercise of a change in the ownership of the assets and liabilities of IX and X Schedule Entities would have no bearing on the distribution of the employees of the Public Sector undertakings / Corporations / Autonomous Bodies between the entities controlled exclusively by each of the successor States.
29. This legal position is not disputed by Sri Challa Dhananjaya, counsel for respondent no.7 and the Government Pleader for State of Telangana, appearing for respondent nos.3 and 6.
::13:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_21366_2020
RE: Division of assets and liabilities
30. As regards division of assets and liabilities of the 7th respondent, we are of the opinion that admittedly the 7th respondent prior to the bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, i.e., before 02.06.2014 had Head Office in Hyderabad but regional centers / Branch Offices spread all over the composite State of Andhra Pradesh.
So it was not an undertaking (i) whose operations were confined to only the area falling within the new State of Telangana or
(ii) was exclusively located only in the area falling within the new State of Telangana like the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (which is exclusively located and operated within the territorial jurisdiction of the new State of Telangana).
Therefore, Sub-Section (1) of Section 53 has no application and the State of Telangana cannot have exclusive power over the 7th respondent merely because the Head Office was located in the State of Telangana. It cannot claim that all assets and liabilities solely belong to it, and that it should control all affairs in relation to the 7th respondent to the exclusion of the State of Andhra Pradesh and its new entity the A.P. Telugu Academy in Chittoor District (respondent no.10).
In our opinion, proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 53 would operate because the operation of the Telugu Academy became inter-
::14:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_21366_2020
State by virtue of the Re-Organization of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh under provisions of Part II of the Act, and so the assets and liabilities of the Head Quarters shall be apportioned between respondent nos.7 and 10 in the ratio 41.68 : 58.32 and the assets and liabilities of the respective Regional Centers have to be apportioned on location basis.
31. In Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education v. Union of India & Ors.5, a similar contention was raised by the State of Telangana and the Telangana State Education Council for Higher Education that the assets, properties and funds lying at the then location at Hyderabad of the A.P. State Education Council for Higher Education, which is also an institution specified at item No.27 of Schedule-X to the Act, belong exclusively to the Telangana State Education Council for Higher Education,. The said view had been accepted by the Telangana High Court but was reversed by the Supreme Court in an Appeal filed by the A.P. State Council for Higher Education.
The Supreme Court observed that when an existing State is bifurcated to form two new States, there must be an equitable bifurcation of the assets and liabilities of the statutory bodies among the two successor States as well, to ensure the welfare of the public at large residing within these territories.
5
2016(6) SCC 635
::15:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_21366_2020
The Supreme Court noted that the State of Telangana had claimed ownership over the entire funds and assets of the erstwhile A.P. State Council for Higher Education; that this could surely not have been the intention of the legislature while enacting the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014; if the argument of the State of Telangana that the successor State of Andhra Pradesh had absolutely no right over the institutions in the city of Hyderabad, by virtue of the fact that Hyderabad falls in the successor State of Telangana, is accepted on the basis of Section 75 of the Act, then Section 47 of the Act, which provides for the apportionment of assets and liabilities among the successor States would become useless and nugatory.
The Supreme Court set aside the action of certain banks freezing the bank accounts of the erstwhile A.P. State Council for Higher Education as untenable in law and set it aside. It declared that the assets of the erstwhile A.P. State Council for Higher Education be divided between the two successor States in the population ratio of 58:42 as provided under Section 2(h) of the Act, if the two successor States are agreeable to it or in the alternative the Central Government should constitute a Committee and arrive at an agreement.
32. The ratio in the above said judgment i.e that merely because the Head Office of a State Institution happens to be in Hyderabad in the jurisdictional area of the State of Telangana after 02.06.2014, the Telangana State or the successor entity of the State Institution created ::16:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020 by the Telangana State alone cannot completely take over the assets of such institution, is clearly applicable to the case the 7th respondent as well.
33. So we hold that because the Head Office of the 7th respondent happened to be in Hyderabad in the new State of Telangana, neither the State of Telangana nor the 11th respondent acting under the control of the said State can claim all the assets of the 7th respondent to the exclusion of the 10th respondent, the Andhra Pradesh Telugu Academy.
34. The 10th respondent has also rights in respect of not only the assets of the 7th respondent but also in respect of the employees of the 7th respondent and no unilateral decisions can be taken by the 7th respondent/11th respondent, such as the one impugned in this Writ Petition in proceeding No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019.
35. Though in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents 3,6 and 7 they have taken a contrary stand, it is untenable in view of the decision in A.P. State Council of Higher Education (5 supra) and the order in B.Sambasiva Rao(1 supra).
36. The respondent nos.8 and 10 through the Special Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh, specifically support this view.
::17:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_21366_2020
It is the contention of respondents 8 and 10 that though the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh in its Memo No.10411 / SR / A.1 / 2014 dt.14.05.2014 decided that the Telugu Academy shall be bifurcated as per the provisions contained in the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 preferably before the appointed day, the then Director of Telugu Academy, Hyderabad who hails from the State of Telangana with ulterior motive did not initiate any action for bifurcation because of which employees and students of the A.P. State are suffering a lot.
It is contended that in all Schedule - X Institutions including the Telugu Academy, common resources of both the States were invested over a period of time when the State was a combined one, but employees belonging to Andhra Pradesh working in these Institutions at various places were being discriminated by not allowing them enhanced salaries and other benefits on par with employees of the Telugu Academy (7th respondent) at Hyderabad in Telangana State. It is also stated that apportionment in respect of staff and funds has not been initiated in the ratios fixed in the Act.
It is stated that an amount of Rs.253.77 crores is lying in various Banks in the form of Fixed Deposits as on 01.06.2014 which had now become Rs.340 crores and that the entire amount is being completely used by the 7th respondent alone without apportioning it between the entities of both States, i.e., respondent nos.7 and 10 in the ratio 41.68 : 58.32. It is contended that unless the same are ::18:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020 apportioned, the 10th respondent is not in a position to run and the bifurcation of staff would be meaningful only if the funds are apportioned.
37. We find considerable force in the above submissions of the respondent nos.8 and 10 who support petitioners' contentions with regard to both bifurcation of staff and also division of assets and liabilities of the 7th respondent after 02.06.2014.
38. We therefore reject the contention of respondents 3, 6 and 7 that they have exclusive control of all activities of the 7th respondent including employees and assets on location basis i.e. because the Head Office of the 7th respondent is located at Hyderabad in the State of Telangana.
RE: Allocation of employees
39. We have already referred to the letter dt.15.11.2017 issued to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005 showing the duration of employment of the petitioners which for some petitioners started in 2002 itself.
The attention of the Counsel for respondents 3, 6 & 7 was drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3)6 and the mandate contained in the said decision to Government and Government Entities/Instrumentalities to have a regular process of recruitment or appointment periodically.
6
2006(4) SCC 1
::19:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_21366_2020
They were asked to explain why the petitioners were being engaged either on contract basis or daily wage basis for such a long time, but no satisfactory response is received from the said respondents.
The fact that some of the petitioners have been engaged for over 10 years is an indication of regularity of work available and such positions ought to be filled on a regular basis by applying the relevant rules of recruitment, but it appears that the 7th respondent deliberately did not do so, and exploited the petitioners by paying them low wages. This conduct of the 7th respondent is akin to an unfair labour practice.
40. It is the stand of the 7th respondent in para 13 of the counter affidavit filed by it that petitioners were neither appointed through selection process nor on contract basis and they were engaged on daily basis only.
This plea cannot be accepted as regards the petitioners who are Data Entry Operators because there is a categorical finding recorded in the order dt.08.07.2019 in WP.No.38404 of 2019 that they were appointed on contract basis and that they were continued even on the date of the disposal of the Writ Petition on contract basis. This finding has attained finality.
Petitioners assert that they perform all works of regular employees in the respective regional centers of the 7th respondent in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and we accept the said plea.
::20:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_21366_2020
41. By virtue of the impugned proceedings No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019 issued by the 7th respondent, the status of the petitioners is sought to be changed from contract/daily wage employees to employees engaged directly by 7th respondent to that of employment indirectly through an outsourcing agency.
42. The counsel for respondents 3, 6 & 7 is unable to explain how engagement of petitioners through outsourcing agency is permitted by the Bye-laws of the 7th respondent because under Bye-law 8(b), such a method of appointment is not at all mentioned. On this count also the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained.
43. The stand of the 7th respondent is that in a review meeting of the 7th respondent with the Secretary to Government, Education Department, the latter had insisted that the daily wage system must be stopped and the 7th respondent should take up works on outsourcing basis as per G.O.Ms.No.2246 Finance (SMPC) Department dt.07.06.2007; that the 7th respondent followed it and placed Action Taken Report before 130th Standing Committee for Administrative Matters held on 16.01.2020; and that the Standing Committee noted the said information.
44. According to the respondents 3, 6 & 7 the Secretary to Government, Education Department, State of Telangana is the Vice- Chairman of the Board of Governors and is the Chairman also of the Standing Committee for Administrative Matters of Telugu Academy.
::21:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_21366_2020
45. Even so, in our opinion, he alone cannot decide what the Standing Committee for Administrative Matters is supposed to do.
46. Moreover item No.6 of the Minutes of the Meeting/Resolutions passed on 16.01.2020 of the 130th Standing Committee for Administrative Matters (filed by the respondents) shows that the issue of outsourcing of services of Data Entry Operators, Sanitation, Maintenance, Books Loading/Unloading as per G.O.Rt.No.2246 dt.07.06.2007 was not specifically approved by the said Standing Committee and the Minutes show "that it was informed" about it and the Standing Committee "noted" the said information.
There was admittedly no prior approval of the Standing Committee on Administrative Matters taken by the 7th respondent before issuing the impugned proceedings on 07.12.2019 and there is also no post-facto approval for it.
47. In our opinion, proceedings No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019 reflect the decision of the only 11th respondent, who had no such authority or jurisdiction to take such decision which, even according to him, ought to have been taken by the Standing Committee.
48. As per the Rule 8(2)(iii) of the Telugu Academy Rules, it is the Board of Governors which has the power to appoint and control Officers and Staff for the efficient management of the affairs of the Academy and to regulate their recruitment and conditions of service.
::22:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_21366_2020
The Director of the Academy (11th respondent) is merely a Member Secretary of the Board of Governors. Without the concurrence of the Board of Governors, the 11th respondent could not have issued the impugned proceedings No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019. This also vitiates the impugned proceedings.
49. That apart, we have already held that the 10th respondent has also rights in respect of not only the assets of the 7th respondent but also in respect of the employees of the 7th respondent and no unilateral decisions can be taken by the 7th respondent/11th respondent, such as the one impugned in this Writ Petition in proceeding No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019.
50. It is unfortunate that there is no member representing the interests of the 10th respondent or the State of Andhra Pradesh in the Standing Committee for Administrative Matters of the 7th respondent. The Secretary to Government, Education Department, State of Telangana alone could not have given any directions to the Standing Committee. This is blatant usurpation of power by the said official and the 11th respondent contrary to the provisions of the Act, and any decision taken by them such as the one contained in the impugned proceedings dt.07.12.2019, has no legal sanctity.
51. Regarding the contention of the respondents that petitioners did not questioned work orders dt.31.10.2019 and dt.8.11.2019 issued to the Outsourcing Agencies by the 7th respondent is concerned, they are ::23:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020 not actionable proceedings and the proceedings dt.07.12.2019 which affect petitioners' rights alone were rightly challenged by them because from 01.12.2019 their salaries/wages had been stopped by the 7th respondent without any jurisdiction.
52. It may be that the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh asked the 7th respondent on 08.05.2015 not to print Intermediate Text Books for the students of the State of Andhra Pradesh, but nothing prevented the 7th respondent to continue to publish and sell books for Under-Graduate, Post-Graduate, D.Ed. and B.Ed. and other competitive books in the State of Andhra Pradesh, other than books for Intermediate course and generate revenue. This is an indication of how the 7th respondent proposes to slowly close the activities of the 7th respondent in all the regional centers of Andhra Pradesh. In fact, the above defence of the 7th respondent was rejected in WP.No.38404 of 2017 and Batch, specifically.
53. For all the aforesaid reasons,
a) Proceedings No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019 issued by the 7th respondent is declared to be illegal, contrary to the Bye-laws and Rules of the 7th respondent, Section 82 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 and is declared to be one issued without jurisdiction, and is set aside;
b) the 7th respondent is directed to pay wages to the petitioners on par with those employed in similar capacities in the State ::24:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020 of Telangana from 01.12.2019 within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall continue to pay the same till allocation of the petitioners is made as set out below between the 7th respondent and 10th respondent;
c) the 7th and 10th respondents shall discuss with each other and agree on the modalities/guidelines for allocation of employees of the 7th respondent as on 02.06.2014 including the petitioners within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and then allocate the employees as per the said norms within one (01) month of finalization of modalities/guidelines;
d) the assets and liabilities of the 7th respondent as on 02.06.2014 shall be apportioned between the 10th respondent and the 7th respondent as per proviso to Section 53(1) of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 in the ratio 58.32 : 41.68 within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
e) the respondents 3, 6 & 7 shall pay costs of Rs.3,000/- to each of the petitioners within four (04) weeks.
54. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs. I.A.No.3 of 2020 is dismissed and order dt.07-12-2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 is made absolute.
::25:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_21366_2020
55. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J ______________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J Date: 22-01-2021 Ndr/gra