The Government Of A.P., vs C. Venkateswarlu,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3830 AP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      &
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA


                    WRIT APPEAL No.531 of 2021

                     (Taken up through video conferencing)


The Government of A.P.,
Higher Education Department,
Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat,
Hyderabad, presently at Velagapudi,
Guntur District, and another.
                                                             .. Appellants
      versus
C. Venkateswarlu,
S/o. Narayana, aged 34 years,
R/o. D.No.8/33/28, 4th lane,
Vykuntapuram, Kavali, Nellore District,
(Occ: Working as Lecturer in Physics,
Jawahar Bharathi Degree College,
Kavali, Nellore District, and others.
                                                             .. Respondents

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. K. V. Raghuveer, GP for Higher Education Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. M. Ravindranath Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2 : Ms. K. Rajya Lakshmi Counsel for respondent No.3 : --

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Dt: 29.09.2021)

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher

Education, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M. Ravindranath 2 HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.531 of 2021

Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner and

Ms. K. Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. This writ appeal is preferred against a judgment and order dated

26.02.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.26681 of 2007,

whereby the said writ petition was allowed by issuing a direction to the

appellants to absorb the 1st respondent/writ petitioner against the aided

vacancy of Junior Lecturer in Physics in Jawahar Bharathi Degree College

(2nd respondent herein), while setting aside the order dated 13.12.2016

passed by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education rejecting the case of

the 1st respondent/writ petitioner for such absorption.

3. It is noticed that in the order of the learned single Judge, at some

places, the order dated 13.12.2016 has been recorded as order dated

13.12.2017.

4. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner was working in the 2nd

respondent-College in an un-aided post from 01.07.1997 and a prayer

was made by him for his absorption into vacant aided post of Lecturer in

Physics in the said College. Before the learned single Judge, a submission

was made by the counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner that the

issue raised in the writ petition was similar to the one considered by the

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1470 of 2012 & batch

and W.A.No.1047 of 2012 and such submission, as noted by the learned

single Judge, was not refuted by the counsel for the other side. In other

words, learned counsel for the appellants had agreed that the case of the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner was covered by the judgments in

W.A.Nos.1470 of 2012 & batch and in W.A.No.1047 of 2012.

                                      3                                HCJ & NJS, J
                                                               W.A.No.531 of 2021

5. Perusal of the judgment dated 05.09.2012 passed by a Division

Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1047 of

2012 goes to show that the writ petition filed by the Lecturers who were

originally appointed in unaided vacancies was allowed by a learned single

Judge directing the authorities to absorb them in aided vacancies of

Junior Lecturers in Telugu and the Division Bench, by the aforesaid

judgment, had opined that the order of the learned single Judge did not

suffer from any irregularity or illegality and, accordingly, dismissed the

appeal. The said judgment and order dated 05.09.2012 in W.A.No.1047

of 2012 was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Petition for

Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.38336 of 2012, which was dismissed by

an order dated 07.01.2013.

6. In W.A.No.1470 of 2012 and batch also, the order of a learned

single Judge directing regularization of the services of the Lecturers into

grant-in-aid posts was under challenge. The Division Bench referred to

the order dated 05.09.2012 passed in W.A.No.1047 of 2012, which was

confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as noted above, and dismissed

the writ appeals preferred by the State, vide common judgment dated

26.07.2013. The said common judgment was challenged by the

authorities before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4232-

4236 of 2016 and, by a judgment and order dated 19.04.2016, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued certain directions with regard to

regularization of the services of the Lecturers and while leaving it open to

the State Government to apply the Scheme which was formulated vide

Memo No.10029/CE/A2/2014-4 dated 19.01.2015 to such similarly placed

Lecturers, restricted the direction issued in the said judgment to eight 4 HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.531 of 2021

respondents therein who diligently presented their claims with a further

observation that the said judgment cannot be quoted as a precedent in

respect of any other persons.

7. As the submission made before the learned single Judge that the

issue raised in the writ petition is covered by the aforesaid judgments was

not opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and

when the judgment dated 05.09.2012 in W.A.No.1047 of 2012 was also

confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find no good ground to

interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.

8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                            NINALA JAYASURYA, J


                                                                           IBL