Dr. V. Ravi Naidu vs Dr. B. Krishna Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 4488 AP

                                          1


             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                                      AND
         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA


                  W.A.Nos.882, 1222 and 1367 of 2008


COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu)


      W.A.No.882 of 2008 is filed by five appellants questioning the

order dated 23.07.2008 passed in W.P.No.6852 of 1997.

2.    W.A.No.1222      of   2008     is       filed   by   respondent   No.12   in

W.P.No..6852 of 1997questioning the order of the learned single

Judge.

3. W.A.No.1377 of 2008 is filed by respondent No.5 in W.P.No.6852

of 1997 questioning the order dated 23.07.2008 in W.P.No.6852 of

1997.

4. This Court has heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao and Sri

K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel as instructed by Srinivasa

Rao Bodduluri, Smt. G.Jhansi, Sri N.Ranga Reddy, Sri K.Udaya Sree

and Sri Turaga Sai Surya.

5. The arguments were commenced and lead by Sri B.Adinarayana,

and Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel continued the

arguments and made his submissions.

6. Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, standing counsel for the University

submits that initially the University also filed W.A.No.1465 of 2008

against the impugned judgment and it was withdrawn on 02.05.2022.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education stated that

they are just a formal party. Therefore, the arguments of Sri

B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel were heard at length. This

was followed by submissions of Sri K.Chidambaram.

8. Despite opportunities, as recorded in the proceeding sheets, the

counsel for the writ petitioner did not appear and or argue the matter.

9. This Court after hearing the essential submissions of Sri

B.Adinarayana Rao notices that although the writ petitioner applied

for two posts, he challenged the entire notification. It is noticed that

the submissions, pleadings and prayer are in the nature of a public

interest litigation and despite the objection raised, the learned Judge

overlooked the same. It is also submitted that in service matters,

there cannot be a 'public interest litigation' and that the judgment in

Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra 1, applies

to the facts of the case.

10. In addition, learned senior counsel also submits that the

University also had challenged the findings of the learned single

Judge, but had withdrawn the same for its own reasons. Lastly, he

2013 (4) SCC 465

submits that all the writ petitioners have been in service since years

and had obtained appointment orders in 1997 which enable them to

continue in service. It is also pointed out that some of the

respondents had also superannuated. The writ appellant in

W.A.No.1222 of 2008 had also raised additional grounds which are

argued by his counsel Sri T.Sai Surya. He also points out that the

writ appellant had also retired from service on 31.03.2021. Pointing

out to the agenda and other items which are described in his

additional affidavit filed, he submits that orders of termination were

passed a few weeks before his retirement with a mala fide intention.

11. This Court after examining the judgments notices that the

prayer in the writ petition is to set aside the advertisements dated

20.11.1996 and 22.02.1997. Admittedly, the writ petitioner therein

applied for two posts of 'Project Leader' and of a 'Senior Research

Assistant' in the EDC. Even though he was issued call letter, he did

not appear for the post of Senior Research Assistant.

12. Learned senior counsel points out that even though the prayer is

limited to a particular individual, almost eight (8) issues were framed

as 8(a) to 8(h) and findings were rendered. It is also pointed out that

in the ultimate analysis; number of findings were given despite the

limited scope. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsels that a

person aggrieved can at best challenge the notification with regard to

the post to which he had applied to seek redressal insofar as his

particular posts are concerned, but in the case on hand, the entire

notification even pertaining to posts for which the writ petitioner did

not himself apply are set aside. This Court therefore, holds that the

petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person or a person who

suffers a legal injury for all the other posts he had not applied. This is

not a writ in public interest but is a cause pertaining to a particular

individual who applied for two posts only.

13. In addition, this Court also notices that the University is also not

really challenging the appeals and or the notification. The appeal they

have filed was withdrawn.

14. It is admitted that the appellants are continuing since long,

learned senior counsel relied upon a judgment in Tridip Kumar

Dingal v. State of W.B.2 to argue that an equitable relief can be

granted by the Court and the candidates who have rendered long

years of service should be allowed to continue on the grounds of

equity. It is rightly pointed out by the senior counsel that in this

judgment also a series of earlier judgments were considered wherein

the Courts did not set aside the appellants on the ground that the

incumbents were working for a several years and gained good

experience. On the principle of equity, the selections were not

(2009) 1 SCC 768

disturbed. In fact, in some cases, the service was only five years or

more while the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not disturbed the

selection. In the case on hand, the advertisements are of the years

1996 and 1997. The writ petitions are of 1997. The impugned order

was passed in 2008 and appeals are filed in 2008. The writ appeals

are being heard in 2023. Some of the appellants have also retired

from service. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that disturbing

their status at this stage is also not called for in line with Tridip

Kumar Dingal's case (2 supra).

15. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the orders in the

writ petition should have been confined to the two posts which the

writ petitioner had applied for and cannot extend to the findings

against the entire notification.

16. Therefore, all the writ appeals are allowed setting aside the

judgment dated 23.07.2008. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the

miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

__________________________________ DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J

Date: 25.09.2023 KLP