Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
C.Nagaraju vs The Registrar, on 30 September, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P No.21991 of 2015
Rev I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P. No.8311 of 2015
Rev. I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.24870 of 2015
Rev. I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.28249 of 2015
COMMON ORDER:
The Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued
G.O.Ms.No.14 Higher Education (UE.II) Department, dated
20.02.2010, for implementing the University Grants
Commission Revised Pay Scales 2006, for the benefit of teaching
staff in Universities and Colleges w.e.f. 01.01.2006. After this
G.O was implemented, certain complaints had been received in
relation to the scales of pay being given the teaching staff, and
mainly in relation to Associate Professors, Senior Scientists and
Professors. In view of these complaints, the Government had
issued Memo No.6882/UE.II/2010-I dated 06.07.2010.
2. Earlier, the teaching faculty had been granted
certain pay scales under G.O.Ms.No.14, primarily the Pay Band
of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs.9000/-. By way of the Memo,
this Pay Band was sought to be disturbed by directing that
Associate Professors/Readers recruited prior to 12.02.2010 shall
be placed in the Pay Band of Rs.15600-39100 only and that they
would be placed under the Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 with
AGP of Rs.9000/- after they complete three years of service.
2
3. Various teaching faculty of the Universities have
filed writ petitions, challenging the said memo and for a
consequential direction that their earlier Pay Band of Rs.37400-
67000 with an AGP of Rs.9000/- be restored. By an order of a
learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh dated 23.06.2015, these writ petitions were allowed
setting aside the Memo No. 6882/UE.II/2010-I dated
06.07.2010 with a consequential declaration that the petitioners
therein are entitled for a Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP
of Rs.9000/-.
4. No appeal was filed against this order and the same
became final.
5. Thereafter, other similarly placed persons had
approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way
of the above writ petitions.
6. A learned Single Judge, on the basis of the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
parties that the issue raised, in the respective writ petitions, was
squarely covered by the order dated 23.06.2014, had disposed of
these writ petitions in terms of the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 23.06.2014,
7. The writ petitioners in these writ petitions had later
approached this Court, by filing contempt cases, on the ground
3
that the respondents were not complying with the directions of
the Court.
8. At that stage, the present review applications have
been filed.
9. In the review applications, the contentions raised are
the common order dated 23.06.2014 requires to be reviewed; the
memo which has been set aside, has been issued by the
Government for clarifying that G.O.Ms.No.14 had been issued
on the basis of draft regulations on 2009 which were
subsequently modified, as can be seen from the U.G.C Letter
No.1-2/2009 (EC/PS) dated 14.09.2010, addressed to the Vice
Chancellors of the Universities; the Court had not considered
the effect of the final U.G.C Regulations 2010 and the orders of
the Court are not in accordance with the said U.G.C regulations.
10. Heard the learned Government Pleader for
Education and the respective counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners.
11. The review petitioners are seeking a review of the
Judgment dated 23.06.2014 in W.P.No.18255 of 2010 & batch.
The same is impermissible as, such a review can be only sought
in the same writ petition and the orders passed in one writ
petition cannot be reviewed in another writ petition.
12. The orders in the present writ petitions have been
passed on the basis of the earlier orders which have now become
final. This fact is not disputed in the grounds of review. In such
a situation, the question of reviewing the present orders would
not arise.
13. It is settled law that a review is permissible where
the error is apparent on the face of the record and does not
require any elaborate submissions or arguments to make out a
case of error on the part of the Court. An appeal cannot be
converted into a review petition and moved before the Court
which has passed the order under review. In the present case,
the contentions raised by the review petitioners would require
an elaborate hearing and reconsideration of various issues
before any finding of an error, if any, can be made out. The
grounds raised by the review petitioners go far beyond the scope
of what would be permissible in a review application.
14. For all the aforesaid reasons, these Review Petitions
are dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Date : 30.09.2022
RJS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P No.21991 of 2015
Rev I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P. No.8311 of 2015
Rev. I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.24870 of 2015
Rev. I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.28249 of 2015
Date : 30.09.2022
RJS
