THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Writ Appeal No.1792 of 2013
JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellants assailing
the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
Writ Petition No.14859 of 2007, dated 22.06.2012.
2. Heard Mr. Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Srikanth, learned counsel for the
respondent.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent responded to a notification issued by the appellants for the post of Lecturer; as per the said notification, the qualifications required for the post of Lecturer is M.A. / M.Sc. with B.Ed. (Special Education) from a recognized University or equivalent certificate with minimum of three years of experience of teaching to the visually impaired students; the respondent was appointed ::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1792_2013 as a Lecturer with the appellants vide proceedings dated 16.06.2005 with certain terms and conditions; as the respondent has violated Condition No.3 of the appointment letter, the services of the respondent were terminated in accordance with Clause No.3(i) of the appointment order.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that two posts were notified : one post at Hyderabad, and another post, which was earmarked for 'OBC', at Bhuvaneshwar; since the respondent was a candidate belonging to 'OBC', his appointment has to be treated as appointment against the post at Bhuvaneshwar, and Condition No.3 in the appointment order has made it very clear that the services of respondent would be terminated at any point of time; aggrieved by the order of termination dated 28.06.2007, the respondent approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.14859 of 2007; vide order dated 22.06.2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the termination orders by directing that the respondent be continued in service, without appreciating the fact that the respondent was appointed in a post which was advertised ::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1792_2013 at Bhuvaneshwar, and the post which was advertised at Hyderabad was a lien post and it was not a regular post; and therefore, prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition 14859 of 2007, dated 22.06.2012.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that though the respondent is a Member belonging to 'OBC' and secured highest marks, he should have been appointed against an 'Un-Reserved' post which was advertised in the notification; the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the termination order; moreover, there was no interim suspension of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition 14859 of 2007, dated 22.06.2012; by virtue of the said order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent is being continued in service and later the services of the respondent was also regularized, and the appellants are continuing the respondent with all consequential benefits; and there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
::4:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1792_2013
6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the termination order is dated 28.06.2007, and we are in the year 2022; and in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition 14859 of 2007, dated 22.06.2012, the appellants are continuing the respondent in service with all consequential benefits. Moreover, the respondent has secured the highest marks in the selections. Therefore, his case has to be understood that he has to be appointed against the 'Un-Reserved' vacancy and he does not fall under Clause No.3(i) of the appointment order which was notified in the notification. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition 14859 of 2007, dated 22.06.2012. Moreover, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was also not suspended by this Court which would mean that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge were already implemented. On this ground also, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned ::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1792_2013 Single Judge in Writ Petition 14859 of 2007, dated 22.06.2012.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J _____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date : 01.12.2022 Ndr