A. Naga Suresh, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 2544 AP

            HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                WRIT PETITION No.33453 of 2014
ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India for the following relief:-

"to issue a Writ One in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not absorbing the petitioner in aided post of Lecturer in Political Science in the 3rd respondent college and trying to fill up by surplus staff from other aided institutions without considering his application dated 03.12.2012 by rejecting the proceedings Rc.No.191/Admn, VI/2009, dated 27.4.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider to absorb the petitioner in the exiting aided vacancy in the 3 rd respondent college and to pass such other order or orders......."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner passed

M.A in First Class. The Sathavahana College,

Seetharampuram, Vijayawada- 3rd respondent established a

Degree college at Vijayawada, Krishna District known as

Sathavahana Degree College. The Institution has been

admitted to Grant-in-Aid. The petitioner applied for the post of

Political Science. The 3rd respondent after conducted

recruitment in terms of procedure in vogue, the Selection

Committee selected the petitioner and he has been working in

the said post from 18.06.2005 and continuing in the same

post. The petitioner paid a consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/-

initially and at present he is drawing salary of Rs.4,000/- per

month by the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the petitioner is

the senior most Lecturer in Political Science in an unaided post

and he is entitled to be absorbed in the next aided post and his

selection and appointment is as per rules.

It is further stated that the appointment of the petitioner

was made in the unaided vacancy in terms of the procedure

prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.12 and the said appointment was also

ratified by the 2nd respondent-The Commissioner of Collegiate

Education, A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad, who is the competent

authority. Thus, the petitioner is a regular lecturer posted to

work in an unaided vacancy. It may be stated that even in

respect of aided vacancies the procedure for appointment is the

same as provided in G.O.Ms.No.12. Thus, there is absolutely

no distinction between the Lecturers appointed in unaided

vacancies and those appointed in aided vacancies as far as

selection, recruitment and nature of duties is concerned.

Though some of the Lecturers were absorbed from unaided

posts to aided posts on the basis of the seniority, the

petitioner's case was not considered by the respondents as

such he filed W.P.No.33935 of 2011 before the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same was disposed of

vide order dated 23.12.2011 directed the 2nd respondent to

consider the proposal and the details furnished by the 3 rd

respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with

law within a period of two months. However, the 2nd

respondent without considering the facts and material, rejected

the regularization of the petitioner, vide proceedings

Rc.No.191/Admn.VI-2009 on 27.4.2012. Thereafter, the

petitioner made a representation dated 03.12.2012 to the 1st

respondent requested for regularization on par with other

beneficiaries with similar grounds. But the respondents have

not taken any action. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents No.1 and

2 denying all the allegations made in the petition and

contended that as per the order dated 23.12.2011 in

W.P.No.33935 of 2011 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad the proposal submitted by the 3rd respondent

college has been examined with reference to the existing rules

and rejected vide CCE's Procs.Rc.No.191/Admn.VI/2009,

dated 27.04.2012 informing that the petitioner's appointment

was not made by a duly constituted selection committee in

terms of G.O.Ms.No.12 Education, dated 10.01.1992 under

Section 46 of A.P. Education Act, 1982 Grant in aid is not a

matter of right and also in view of ban on recruitment against

aided posts vide G.O.Ms.No.35 Education, dated 27.03.2006.

It is further submitted that the petitioner herein was

engaged by the Management of 3rd respondent college on

temporary basis on 16.06.2005 without any notification

advertised in prominent news papers, without constitution of

any selection committee (with Subject Experts & Government

Representative), without having requisite minimum

qualification as the petitioner possessed M.A Political Science,

thereby violating the selection procedure as prescribed by the

government in G.O.Ms.No.12 Education, dated 10.01.1992 &

G.O.Ms.No.208, dated 29.06.1999.

It is further stated that as it can be seen from para 11(I)

regarding prescribed minimum qualifications as per G.O.208,

the petitioner does not have requisite qualification

NET/SLET/Ph.D for appointment as Lecturer as he possessed

M.A (Political Science). Further, as seen from the para 11(II)

and 11(III) , the petitioner was not selected as per selection

procedure and also as per the Selection Committee prescribed

in G.O.ms.No.208 Education, dated 29.06.1999. Had there

been a regular vacancy notified with UGC scales, hundreds of

eligible meritorious candidates would have applied and real

meritorious candidate would have been selected in such aided

post. Regularizing such person against the regularly

sanctioned vacant posts with UGC scales would amount to

subverting the regular process of recruitment and benefiting

them through the backdoor methods which would be nothing

less than a scandal. Thus, as the petitioner does not have

requisite qualification and was not recruited through proper

selection process as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.208 Education,

dated 29.06.1999 and also his appointment is illegal and his

claim is not in accordance with law i.e., Act 2 of 1994. Hence,

prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard Mr. P.N. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for

Education appearing for the respondents.

5. On hearing, this Court observed that previously the

petitioner has filed W.P.No.33935 of 2011 before the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same was

disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2011, wherein the operative

portion of the order, reads as under:

"The 2nd respondent, Commissioner, is directed to consider the proposal and the details furnished by the 3 rd respondent and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."

6. However, without considering the facts and

circumstances, the 2nd respondent has rejected the case of the

petitioner for regularization vide proceedings

Rc.No.191/Admn.VI-2009, dated 27.04.2012. Thereafter, the

petitioner made a representation dated 03.12.2012 for

consideration.

7. On hearing, learned Government Pleader has relied

upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in A.

Manjula Bhashini v. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh

Women's Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited 1,

wherein in para-35 it was held that:

" 35. In Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. G.V.K. Girls High School2, this Court answered in negative the question whether the Government could issue a G.O. and deny benefit of grant-in-aid to the school and amend the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 for denying the benefit of the judgment rendered by the High Court in favour of the respondent. "

But the above facts of the decision are not applicable to

the present facts of the case.

2009 (5) ALT 1 (SC)

(2000) 8 SCC 370

8. By virtue of the proceedings dated 24.02.2021, the

Principal Secretary to Government, stated that after careful

examination of the matter, Government have decided to

implement the order of High Court of A.P., dated 19.02.2020 in

W.P.No.11008 of 2014. Accordingly, the Government

permitted the Special Commissioner of Intermediate

Education, A.P. to absorb similarly situated persons into

Grant-in-Aid posts with effect from the date of their

appointment, subject to outcome of Writ Appeal No.344 of

2020, which is pending before this Court for adjudication.

9. In view of the foregoing reasons and upon perusing

the material available on record, this Court deems it fit to

dispose of the writ petition declaring the order of 2nd

respondent in Rc.No.191/Admn.VI-2009, dated 27.4.2012

rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 03.12.2012 is

held illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the respondents No.l

and 2 are directed to absorb the petitioner in the existing aided

vacancy in the 3rd respondent college with effect from the date

of his appointment with all consequential benefits.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date :        -06-2022
Gvl





      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO




         WRIT PETITION No.33453 of 2014




                Date :       .06.2022




Gvl