Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr. P. Ravi Kumar vs Sri Venkateswara Veterinary ... on 15 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[
3463
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY ]
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
APHC010069312024
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 151 OF 2024
Between:
Dr. P. Ravi Kumar ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
SRI VENKATESWARA VETERINARY UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for the Respondents: KOTHA RAMA MOHAN RAO(SC FOR SVVUT)
The Court made the following JUDGMENT:
1) Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and the
learned Counsel for the Respondent University.
2) The Writ Petition came to be initiated by the Appellant,
who was the Petitioner before the learned Single Judge, with
the following prayer:
"It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the Memo
No.11576/Ser. I/2008 dated 09-12-2019 of the 1st
respondent wherein informed the petitioner that he will
not be considered in future for the post of Associate Dean
in any constituent Colleges of the University and
appointing the 4th respondent as Associate Dean of NTR
College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram ignoring the
case of petitioner though he is senior than the 4th
respondent in the cadre of Professor vide Proc.
No.350054/Ser.I/2021 dated 30-10-2023 of the 1st
Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional,
violative of amended Rule 28 of AP Subordinate Service
Rules, 1996 issued vide GOMs.No.92 (GAD) dated 28-08-
2023 apart from being violative of law declared by this
Honble Court in MVRLS Ravikanth vs State of Andhra
Pradesh ((2017) 06 AP CK 0001) G.Boyanna Vs.
Registrar (Admn.) High Court of AP & Anr.{2009(2) ALD
402 (DB)} and The District Educational Officer, Kurnool &
Ors vs. Shahnaz Begum (WP No. 26654 of 2005) and
consequently set aside the same by directing the
Respondents to consider the case of petitioner for
promotion/appointment to the post of Associate Dean in
NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram or in any
other constituent colleges in the existing or in future
vacancy as per his Seniority and pass such other order or
orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case."
3) The Writ Petition came to be allowed on certain terms by
granting the following reliefs:-
i) The Proceeding dated 09.12.2019 vide
Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008 (Ex.P.6) is set aside, but
prospectively for the reasons aforesaid;
ii) Since the Proceeding dated 09.12.2019 vide
Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008 (Ex.P.6) is set aside, the
Respondent No.1 is at liberty to consider the validity of
the reasons stated by the Writ Petitioner in the
Representation dated 15.09.2018 (Ex.P.4) in accordance
with law and by strictly adhering to principles of
Natural Justice which includes prior Notice with
disclosure of full facts, objective consideration of the
explanation and a reasoned final order;
iii) This Court is not inclined to interfere with the
appointment of the Unofficial Respondent No.4 vide
Proceedings bearing Proc.No.350054/Ser.I/2021, dated
30.10.2023 (Ex.P.1) and,
iv) The Writ Petitioner is entitled for being appointed as
Associate Dean or similar post in the future in any of the
constituent Colleges under Respondent No.1."
4) On a reading of the reliefs granted, it is apparent that
the learned Single Judge has been pleased to grant the relief
prospectively and the reasons are not far to seek.
5) The facts are not disputed. The fact that the Petitioner
was entitled to be considered and appointed as "Associate
Dean" in accordance with seniority and suitability is not in
doubt as both the factors i.e., seniority and suitability, have
been accepted by the Respondents University as way back as
in 2018, when the Respondent University, considering the
same appointed the Petitioner as "Associate Dean" of College
of Veterinary Science, Proddatur, for a period of two years by
proceedings, dated 10.09.2018. The said appointment came
to be declined by the Petitioner by his representation, dated
15.09.2018, where-under the Petitioner cited the ill-health of
his wife, who he claimed, had been diagnosed with thyroid
carcinoma. The 1st Respondent University accepting the
same, by letter dated 20.09.2018, revoked the appointment.
The order of revocation, dated 20.09.2018, is also
communicated to the Petitioner and the same reads as
under:-
"In the ref.3rd cited, Dr. P. Ravi Kumar, Professor
(VPT) & Principal has informed that, in view of his wife's
health status, he is unable to accept the responsibility of
Associate Dean, CVSc, Proddatur at this point of time.
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, on considering upon the representation
made by him, the orders issued vide ref.2nd cited,
appointing Dr.P.Ravi Kumar, Principal, AH Polytechnic,
VR Gudem are hereby cancelled.
J.V. RAMANA
REGISTRAR i/c".
6) It appears that, after nearly a year i.e., on 09.12.2019
the Respondent No. 1 University resolved to permanently bar
the candidature of the Petitioner, from consideration to the
post of Associate Dean. A copy of which is also placed before
this Court and which is being impugned before the learned
Single Judge. The same reads as under:-
"In the ref.4th cited, orders issued to Dr.P.Ravi
Kumar, Principal, AHP, VR Gudem appointing him as
Associate Dean, CVSc, Proddatur were cancelled as per
the representation made by him vide ref.3rd cited.
Dr.P.Ravi Kumar, Principal, AHP, VR Gudem is
informed that the reasons submitted by him for not
accepting the assignment of Associate Dean, College of
Veterinary Science, Proddatur are not valid.
Therefore, Dr.P.Ravi Kumar is informed that he will
not be considered in future for similar post in any
constituent college of the University.
D.SRINIVASA RAO
REGISTRAR"
7) The Petitioner does not deny the receipt of the
proceedings bearing Memo No. 11576/Ser.I/2008, dated
09.12.2019, nor is it the case of the Petitioner, that he was
unaware of its implications. That being the case, the lack of
diligence and the delay in challenging the legality of the same
has been put against the Petitioner by the learned Single
Judge, while granting the relief prospectively.
8) Admittedly, the Writ Petition, challenging the legality of
the endorsement is preferred in 2023, after much water had
flown. It is in 2023 that the Petitioner woke up and deemed it
necessary to assert his rights to the said post.
9) The learned Counsel for the Respondents would also
take us through the guidelines settled by the University
Board and in our opinion the same is of no relevance for the
short reason that the amended guidelines, dated 21.09.2017,
does not automatically nor permanently disqualify any
candidate who declines the offer of the University to the
tenure post. Even under the amended guidelines, a
candidate is said to permanently lose his eligibility, only if he
declines the post offered to him without there being any valid
or genuine reason. Indisputably, the offer by the University
was declined by the Petitioner in 2018 on certain grounds,
which can neither be stated as not valid nor not genuine.
10) The ailment noted in the representation is not a minor
ailment and can be a life threatening and it is but natural
that where a life partner is afflicted by such an ailment, it
could certainly disturb any persons' equilibrium and the
action of the Petitioner, in declining the post, at that relevant
point of time, cannot be termed to be imprudent.
11) Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge has
balanced equities and law. We say so in view of the fact that
the learned Single Judge has deemed it appropriate to set-
aside the endorsement dated 20.09.2018, which apparently is
illegal but in the facts and circumstances of the case and
keeping in consideration the delay in approaching the Court,
the learned Single Judge has appropriately and rightly
negated the challenge to the appointment of the private
Respondent, but proceeding further the learned Single Judge
has directed that the Petitioner shall be in the race in future
appointment.
12) In that view of the matter, we do not find any ground,
which would warrant our interference with the well
considered order of the learned Single Judge.
13) With the above observations, the Writ Appeal stands
disposed of. No order as to costs.
14) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
_________________
G.NARENDAR, J
_____________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Sm..
