Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

P Ravi Kumar vs Sri Venkateswara Veterinary ... on 22 January, 2024

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
                       ****
           WRIT PETITION No. 28669 of 2023

Between:

Dr. P. Ravi Kumar S/o. P. Satyam,
Aged 59 years, Occ: Professor of Vety,
Pharmacology, NTR College of Veterinary
Science, Gannavaram,
Krishna District,
Andhra Pradesh - 521 102
                                                 .....Petitioner
                              AND
  1. Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University,
     Dr. YSR Bhavan, Tirupati,
     Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh,
     Rep. by its Registrar.
  2. The Dean, Veterinary Faculty Member,
     Faculty Deans Committee,
     Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University,
     Dr. YSR Bhavan, Tirupati,
     Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh.
  3. The Dean, Dairy Faculty Member,
     Faculty Deans Committee,
     Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University,
     Dr. YSR Bhavan, Tirupati,
     Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh.
  4. Dr. P.V.S. Kishore, Professor, Associate
     Dean Designate, NTR College of Veterinary
     Science, Gannavaram, Krishna District,
     Andhra Pradesh.

                                             .....Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :           22.01.2024.

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

  1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
     may be allowed to see the Judgments ?        Yes/No
                            2


2. Whether copies of Judgment may be
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals ?             Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the
   fair copy of the Judgment ?                     Yes/No


                               ________________________________
                                 G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD,J
                                3




* HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

           + WRIT PETITION No. 28669 of 2023

                          % 22.01.2024
Between:

# Dr. P. Ravi Kumar S/o. P. Satyam,
Aged 59 years, Occ: Professor of Vety,
Pharmacology, NTR College of Veterinary
Science, Gannavaram,
Krishna District,
Andhra Pradesh - 521 102

                                                 ....Petitioner
                            Versus
$ 1. Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University,
     Dr. YSR Bhavan, Tirupati,
     Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh,
     Rep. by its Registrar.

 2. The Dean, Veterinary Faculty Member,
    Faculty Deans Committee,
    Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University,
    Dr. YSR Bhavan, Tirupati,
    Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh.

 3. The Dean, Dairy Faculty Member,
    Faculty Deans Committee,
    Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University,
    Dr. YSR Bhavan, Tirupati,
    Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh.

 4. Dr. P.V.S. Kishore, Professor, Associate
   Dean Designate, NTR College of Veterinary
   Science, Gannavaram, Krishna District,
   Andhra Pradesh.


                                               .....Respondents
                                  4


! Counsel for the Petitioner:   Smt. Kavitha Gottipati

^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Kotha Rama Mohan Rao,
                               Learned Standing Counsel for
                               Sri Venkateswara Veterinary
                               University.

< Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:
  i. (2018) 1 ALD 550 (DB) (W.P.No.13624 of 2015),
  ii. 2009 (2) ALD 402 (DB) and
  iii. (2010) 13 SCC 255.
                               5


 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

              WRIT PETITION No.28669 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, Learned Counsel for

the Writ Petitioner and Sri Kotha Rama Mohan Rao,

Learned Standing Counsel for Sri Venkateswara Veterinary

University.

2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as

under:

"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."

FACTS IN BRIEF:

3. Petitioner herein is a Professor working in NTR

College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram, Krishna

District, one of the constituent colleges of the Respondent

No.1 University. Respondent No.1 University, by

Proceedings bearing Proc.No.3839/Ser.I/2013, dated

25.02.2013 (Ex.P.2), has issued guidelines with approval of

the Board of Management for appointment of Associate

Deans of Colleges under Respondent No.1 University.

Guideline No.6 would stipulate that a faculty member

denying the assignment twice when offered, shall not be

considered subsequently for a similar post or any other

higher administrative responsibility. Subsequently, vide

Proceedings bearing Proc.No.3839/Services.I/2012, dated

21.09.2017, the Guideline No.7 has been incorporated,

which reads as under:

Existing guideline Revised guideline

7. Appointment of Associate When such appointed Dean will be made by the Professor declines to accept Vice-Chancellor based on the the offer without any valid recommendations of the and genuine reasons, he/she Faculty Deans Committee shall not be considered subsequently for similar post in same or other constituent college. Consequently, in such situation, the other Professors in the panel recommended by Faculty Deans Committee will be considered and so on and appointed by Vice-Chancellor based on seniority and suitability.

4. The Guideline No.6 in the Proceeding bearing

Proc.No.3839/Ser.I/2013, dated 25.02.2013 has been

deleted in the new Proceedings dated 21.09.2017.

5. The Writ Petitioner was appointed as Associate Dean,

College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur, for a period of two

years with effect from the date of assumption of charge vide

Proceeding bearing Proc.No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dated

10.09.2018 (Ex.P.3). Within five days from the issuance of

these Proceedings, the Writ Petitioner herein has submitted

a Representation to the Registrar of Respondent No.1

University on 15.09.2018 (Ex.P.4) to the effect that he will

not be able to assume charge as Associate Dean in view of

the ill-health of his wife which includes diagnosis of thyroid

carcinoma and associated treatment. The said

Representation dated 15.09.2018 is extracted as under:

"I submit that I have been appointed as Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur, vide ref. cited above. In this connection, I submit the following for kind consideration by the University.

My wife Dr. V. Rama Devi is working as Professor & Head in the Dept. of Veterinary Pathology at NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram. She has some health issues and is in need of continuous medical supervision and family support. She has undergone complete thyroidectomy on being diagnosed with thyroid carcinoma. The subsequent stress and post thyroidectomy complications lead to other issues like diabetes and hypertension. She also had to undergo discectomy following disc extrusion recently. Of late, she is having hypoglycaemic episodes necessitating constant personal care and medical attention. The medical reports pertaining to the above conditions are enclosed for kind perusal. At present my place of work being nearer to our residence, I am able to attend to her with frequent visits and the same will not be possible if I join at Proddatur.

In view of the above explained health status of my spouse, I submit that, I am unable to accept the responsibility of Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur, at this point of time, and request that I may be given another chance in due course of time.

Yours faithfully, (P. Ravi Kumar)"

6. Along with the said Letter, Writ Petitioner has also

enclosed the Medical Reports pertaining to the illness of his

wife. At that time, the Writ Petitioner was working as

Principal, Animal Husbandry, Polytechnic, Venkatarama

Gudem, West Godavari District.

7. As a response to the requisition submitted by the

Writ Petitioner dated 15.09.2018, the Respondent No.1

University, vide Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dated

20.09.2018, had cancelled the appointment of the Writ

Petitioner as Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science,

Proddatur. It has also been stated in the said Proceeding

that the cancellation has been done keeping in view the

Representation made by the Writ Petitioner about his wife's

health status. The relevant portion of the Proceeding is

usefully extracted hereunder:

"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"

8. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 University, vide

Memo No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dated 09.12.2019, has

informed the Writ Petitioner that the reasons stated in the

Representation made by the Writ Petitioner dated

15.09.2018 (Ex.P.4) are not valid and therefore, the Writ

Petitioner will not be considered in future for similar post

in any constituent college of the University. The relevant

portion of Memo No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dated 09.12.2019

(Ex.P.6) is extracted hereunder:

"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.3 cited.

rd

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"

9. It is pertinent to state that the decision of

Respondent No.1 University that the reasons cited by the

Writ Petitioner about his wife's ill-health is not valid, has

been communicated to the Writ Petitioner after more than

one year. It is also pertinent to submit that the Writ

Petitioner did not challenge the decision of the Respondent

No.1 University dated 09.12.2019 (Ex.P.6). However, after

several years, the Petitioner submitted a Representation

dated 26.10.2023 to Respondent No.1 University to the

effect that he may be considered for being appointed as

Associate Dean for NTR College of Veterinary Science,

Gannavaram. Without considering the said request of the

Writ Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 University has issued

Impugned Proceedings bearing

Proc.No.350054/Ser.I/2021, dated 30.10.2023 (Ex.P.1),

appointing the Unofficial Respondent No.4 as Associate

Dean of NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram,

Krishna District.

SUBMISSIONS OF SMT. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONER:

10. Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, Learned Counsel for the Writ

Petitioner has assailed the Impugned Order and also the

impugned actions of Respondent No.1 University on the

following grounds:

a) That the amended guidelines vide Proceedings

bearing Proc.No.3839/Services.I/2012, dated

21.09.2017 is arbitrary in nature;

b) That the University, having accepted the

Representation given by the Writ Petitioner dated

15.09.2018 and had cancelled the appointment of

the Writ Petitioner as Associate Dean on account

of severe ill-health of his wife. Having done so,

the Respondent No.1 is not permitted to then

decide that the reason given by the Writ Petitioner

for declining the post of Associate Dean as not

valid, after period of more than one year;

c) That the decision rendered by the Respondent

No.1 vide Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dated

09.12.2019 (Ex.P.6) is arbitrary and also illegal

and therefore that the same cannot be put

against the Writ Petitioner forever;

d) The law even with regard to the promotions as per

Rule-28 of the Andhra Pradesh State and

Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 has been

clarified to the effect that future promotion cannot

be denied to an employee if the employee has

relinquished the right or privilege of promotion to

a particular vacancy at one point of time.

11. In support of this, Learned Counsel for the Writ

Petitioner has relied on a Judgment of the Division Bench

of this Court in M.V.R.L.S. Ravikanth Vs. The State of

Andhra Pradesh : ((2018) 1 ALD 550 (DB))

(W.P.No.13624 of 2015) wherein a Division Bench of this

Court had held that the view taken by the Department that

the Petitioner therein cannot be considered for promotion

during the next promotion exercise since the Employee has

failed to join in the earlier promotion post is bad in law and

contrary to Rules 11 (b) and 28 of the State and

Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Learned Counsel for the

Writ Petitioner has submitted that the Division Bench in

W.P.No.13624 of 2015 has followed the ratio rendered by

another Division Bench in G. Boyanna Vs. Registrar

(Administration), High Court of Andhra Pradesh and

Anr. : 2009 (2) ALD 402 (DB). Learned Counsel for the

Writ Petitioner has also submitted that while following

these two Division Bench Orders, a Learned Single Judge

of this Court (in W.P.No.21718 of 2022, dated 24.11.2022),

held that an Employee cannot be deprived of promotion for

the second time if he has opted not to take the promotion

on the earlier occasion. It is submitted by the Learned

Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that on the direction of the

Learned Single Judge, the Respondents have suitably

amended Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh State and

Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, by providing an

Explanation, which is as under:

AMENDMENT

In the said rules, in Rule-28, after the proviso, the following shall be added namely:-

Explanation: (i) In respect of promotion to a member of service, who has exercised relinquishment of promotion due to any reason, Rule 28 does not disentitle him/her from being considered for promotion in a future vacancy merely because he/she had relinquished his/her right under the Rules for promotion earlier.

(ii) Relinquishment of right or privilege of promotion to a particular vacancy would not amount to permanent relinquishment of right of privilege for promotion to that particular vacancy. The Rule-28 cannot be read or interpreted to mean that his/her right to be considered for promotion to any vacancy arising in future also is permanently extinguished.

(iii) The relinquishment of an opportunity for promotion, which arose for an employee occupying certain place in seniority list in the panel year, in view of a vacancy that arose then, in view of the fact he/she was eligible for promotion in the light of the criteria laid down in the Rules, would mean that the extent the privilege has been relinquished is confined to the privilege related to that particular vacancy/panel year which was available to him/her by virtue of the above mentioned circumstances. The Rule cannot be interpreted to mean that the

relinquishment was in respect of future vacancies also. Therefore, the right of the Member of Service shall be considered in future vacancy for promotion, if otherwise eligible."

12. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also

submitted that under similar circumstances, one Dr.

K. Veera Bramhaiah, Professor (VGO) College of Veterinary

Science, Tirupati, was also once declined being appointed

as Associate Dean vide Proceeding dated 16.12.2020

(Ex.P.8) while the same Professor, two years later, was

appointed as Dean of Veterinary Science, SVVU Tirupati.

SUBMISSIONS OF SRI KOTHA RAMA MOHAN RAO,LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 3:

13. Sri Kotha Rama Mohan Rao, Learned Standing

Counsel has submitted that amongst the eligible

Professors, basing on seniority-cum-suitability, they are

appointed as Associate Deans in the constituent colleges

for a period of two years. After completion of two years, the

Professor who has been appointed as an Associate Dean

would go back to his parent department as Professor. He

submits that under these circumstances, the appointment

of Associate Dean is not by way of Promotion and that an

Associate Dean is appointed for a period of two years. He

would submit that under these service conditions, a

Professor being appointed as Associate Dean is not by way

of a Promotion. Since a Professor is appointed as Associate

Dean in one of the constituent colleges of the Respondent

No.1 University for a period of two years, it can only be

treated at least as a 'tenure posting', whereas, a promotion

would contemplate permanent continuance of the

promoted candidate until such Employee superannuates or

gets further promotion or has been removed from service

for any reason.

14. Learned Standing Counsel would also submit that

the Writ Petitioner has assumed that it is a 'promotional

post' and therefore, has relied on the analogy of the

amendment made to the Rule 28 of the State and

Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 vide G.O.Ms.No.92,

General Administration (Services-D) Department, dated

28.08.2023. He would submit that the reliance placed by

the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner with regard to

discrimination by projecting the case of Dr. K. Veera

Bramhaiah, is also not correct. Learned Counsel would

submit that in the case of Dr. K. Veera Bramhaiah,

who is a Professor (VGO), College of Veterinary Science,

Tirupati, he has been appointed as Dean of Veterinary

Science, SVVU Tirupati. In the said premise, the

disqualification of Dr. K. Veera Bramhaiah vide

Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dated 16.12.2020 (Ex.P.8)

would only be for the future consideration of Dr. K.

Veera Bramhaiah for Associate Dean because the amended

Guideline No.7 would indicate that such persons who had

declined to accept the offer as 'Associate Dean' without

valid reason 'shall not be considered subsequently for

similar post in the same or other constituent college'.

DISCUSSION:

15. The admitted facts are that the Writ Petitioner is

working as Professor in NTR College of Veterinary Science,

Gannavaram, which is one of the constituent colleges of

the 1st Respondent University; that as the Writ Petitioner

became eligible based on seniority-cum-suitability by

Proceedings dated 10.09.2018 (Ex.P.3), he was appointed

as Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science,

Proddatur for a period of two years; that on 15.09.2018,

the Writ Petitioner has expressed his inability to accept the

responsibility of Associate Dean in College of Veterinary

Science, Proddatur for the reasons stated in his

Representation dated 15.09.2018 (Ex.P.4); that on

20.09.2018, the Respondent No.1 University has cancelled

the appointment of the Writ Petitioner (Ex.P.5); that after

14 months, the Respondent No.1 University vide

Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dated 09.12.2019 (Ex.P.6)

has issued Proceedings stating that the reasons submitted

by the Writ Petitioner for not accepting the assignment of

Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur,

are not valid and therefore, he shall not be considered in

future for similar post in the constituent college of the

Respondent No.1 University.

16. It has to be noted that the Respondent No.1

University vide Proceeding No.3839/Services.I/2012, dated

21.09.2017 (at Page.No.20 of the material documents) has

introduced Guideline No.7 (extracted supra). It is also to

be noted that the Writ Petitioner has expressly stated in his

Representation dated 15.09.2018 (Ex.P.4) the reasons for

his inability to accept the assignment and assume charge

as Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science,

Proddatur. The medical reasons along with documents

were submitted by the Writ Petitioner. The content of the

Letter dated 15.09.2018 (Ex.P.4) is already extracted

hereinabove. This would indicate that the Writ Petitioner

has not only stated about the medical reasons of his wife

but has also submitted the 'medical reports'. The

Respondent No.1 University has, within five days, cancelled

the appointment of the Writ Petitioner as Associate Dean

(Ex.P.5), whereas, the permanent disqualification of the

Writ Petitioner was communicated by Respondent No.1 to

the Writ Petitioner only after more than 14 months vide

Memo No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dated 09.12.2019 (Ex.P.6).

17. On close scrutiny of Ex.P.6 (Memo.No.1576/Ser.I/2008

dated 09.12.2019), it would indicate that even from amongst

the 'References' cited in Ex.P.6, they would not disclose

that there was any enquiry conducted, nor that the

Petitioner was put to any kind of advance Notice as regards

the proposed decision to disqualify the Writ Petitioner

permanently for holding the post of Associate Dean in the

future. This apart, the decision taken by the Respondent

No.1 University that the reasons cited by the Writ

Petitioner vide his Letter dated 15.09.2018 (Ex.P.4) are not

valid has been communicated only after a period of 14

months.

18. In the backdrop of these facts, the following issues

would arise for consideration before this Court:

Issues:

A) Whether the appointment of Professor as Associate

Dean is by way of 'Promotion' or whether it is a

'tenure based post'?

B) Whether the Guideline No.7 is valid and whether

there can be a permanent disqualification for

promotion to the post of Associate Dean if the

candidate has expressed inability for holding such

post?

19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this

case, this Court deems it appropriate to suo motu frame

two Additional Issues.

Additional Issues:

C) Whether the decision of the Respondent No.1

University vide Memo.No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dated

09.12.2019 (Ex.P.6) is valid or is vitiated for

non-adherence to principles of Natural Justice?

D) If the Memo No.11576/Ser.I/2008 dated

09.12.2019 is vitiated due to non-adherence to the

Principles of Natural Justice, whether the Writ

Petitioner should be considered for the post of

Associate Dean at NTR College of Veterinary

Science, Gannavaram in place of Respondent

No.4?

Promotional Post or Tenure Based Post (Issue-'A'):

20. This Court is in agreement with the submissions

made by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the

appointment of a Professor as Associate Dean of a

constituent college, Respondent No.1 University is only a

'tenure post' for a period of two years. The said post does

not have the attributes of a promotional post inasmuch as

the same is limited to two year period and that it is not

permanent. Since the Professor, who is appointed as

Associate Dean for a period of two years, upon completion

of such tenure, is reverted back to his parent

Department/College as the case may be, it is held that, it is

a 'tenure post'.

Additional Issue-'C':

21. This Court has noticed the amendment made to

Guidelines vide Proceedings dated 21.09.2017 by the

Respondent No.1 University by which Guideline No.7 was

incorporated. This amendment to the Guidelines has not

been challenged by the Writ Petitioner. Therefore, it has to

be clarified that this Court is not examining the validity of

the amendment made by the Respondent No.1 University

to the Guidelines on 21.09.2017 because the Writ

Petitioner has not challenged the Guideline No.7. This

Court has also noticed that the Writ Petitioner has cited

certain reasons for his inability to accept the assignment

as Associate Dean in the College of Veterinary Science,

Proddatur. Whereas the Respondent No.1 University has

conveyed its decision that the Writ Petitioner is

permanently disqualified from holding the post of Associate

Dean since the reasons cited by him vide his Letter dated

15.09.2018 (Ex.P.4) are not valid. This Court has to

examine whether the decision of the Respondent No.1

University made and communicated 14 months after the

Writ Petitioner expressed his inability is violative of

principles of Natural Justice?

22. As indicated earlier, the communication made by the

Respondent No.1 University dated 09.12.2019 (Ex.P.6) is

after more than a period of one year, by which,

the Respondent No.1 University has informed the Writ

Petitioner that the reasons stated by him for not accepting

the offer to be appointed as Associate Dean at Proddatur, is

not valid and genuine. On close examination of Ex.P.6

dated 09.12.2019, it transpires that the Respondent No.1

University has not issued any Notice prior to the decision

taken by Respondent No.1 to disqualify the Petitioner as

Associate Dean or similar post in the future. It is a settled

law that when the Authority proposes or contemplates to

pass any Order which is likely to have adverse bearing on

the service conditions of an employee, such contemplation

or proposal should be put to the employee concerned and

provide an opportunity to such employee to offer an

explanation. It is also a settled law that for such

explanation which is offered by an employee in response to

the proposed adverse action, the Authority is duty-bound

to consider such explanation in an 'objective' manner with

proper 'application of mind' and then pass a reasoned

order which shall include the basis for proposing an

adverse action and the reasoning as to why the Authority is

not satisfied with the explanation that is given by employee

before finally passing the adverse order.

23. In the present case, the Respondent No.1 University

has given an offer to the Writ Petitioner to post him as

Associate Dean in College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur

vide Proceedings dated 10.09.2018 (Ex.P.3). The Writ

Petitioner submitted a Representation dated 15.09.2018

(Ex.P.4) (extracted supra) stating that he is unable to

accept the offer on account of health issues suffered by his

wife and also the nature of treatment. By Proceedings

dated 20.09.2018, the Respondent No.1 University has

cancelled the appointment of the Writ Petitioner as

Associate Dean at Proddatur Veterinary College. At this

stage, the Respondent No.1 University did not state

whether the reasons given by the Writ Petitioner for

declining the offer of Associate Dean are either valid and

genuine; or, not genuine and therefore invalid. The

amended Guideline No.7 does not contemplate any

procedure for appreciating the reason on merit.

Nevertheless, the communication made by the Respondent

No.1 University after 14 months i.e., on 09.12.2019

(Ex.P.6) would simply state that the reasons submitted by

the Writ Petitioner for not accepting the assignment of

Associate Dean at College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur

are not valid and therefore, as a consequence, the

candidature of the Writ Petitioner will not be considered in

future for similar post in any constituent college of the

University. It is already indicated by this Court that this

Proceeding has not been challenged by the Writ Petitioner

for a period of four years. For the first time, the Writ

Petitioner challenged the appointment of the Unofficial

Respondent No.4 vide Proceeding No.350054/Ser.I/2021

dated 30.10.2023 (Ex.P.1).

24. At this juncture, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Natwar Singh Vs. Director of

Enforcement and Anr. : (2010) 13 SCC 255, as regards

the adherence to the principles of audi alteram partem,

would become relevant. Para Nos.32 to 35 of the said

Judgment are usefully extracted hereunder:

"32. The real question that arises for consideration is whether the adjudicating authority even at the preliminary stage is required to furnish copies of all the documents in its possession to a noticee even for the purposes of forming an opinion as to whether any inquiry at all is required to be held.

33. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant pressed into service the doctrine of duty of adequate disclosure which according to him is an essential part of the principles of natural justice and doctrine of fairness. A bare reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rules do not support the plea

taken by the appellants in this regard. Even the principles of natural justice do not require supply of documents upon which no reliance has been placed by the authority to set the law into motion. Supply of relied on documents based on which the law has been set into motion would meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice. No court can compel the authority to deviate from the statute and exercise the power in altogether a different manner than the prescribed one.

34. As noticed, a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided by the adjudicating authority in the manner prescribed for the purpose of imposing any penalty as provided for in the Act and not at the stage where the adjudicating authority is required merely to decide as to whether an inquiry at all be held into the matter. Imposing of penalty after the adjudication is fraught with grave and serious consequences and therefore, the requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposition of any such penalty is to be met. In contradistinction, the opinion formed by the adjudicating authority whether an inquiry should be held into the allegations made in the complaint are not fraught with such grave consequences and therefore the minimum requirement of a show-cause notice and consideration of cause shown would meet the ends of justice. A proper hearing always include, no doubt, a fair opportunity to those who are parties in the controversy for correcting or contradicting anything prejudicial to their view.

35. Lord Denning has added: (AC p. 337) "If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what

statements have been made affecting him: and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them."

(See Kanda v. Govt. of Malaya6)"

25. In the above premise, there is no doubt in the mind of

the Court that the Proceeding issued by the Respondent

No.1 University on 09.12.2019 (Ex.P.6) is in gross violation

of principles of Natural Justice for the following reasons:

a) That the Respondent No.1 University did not

communicate the adverse decision as regards the

correctness of the reason given by the Writ

Petitioner at the time of cancellation of the

appointment vide Proceeding dated 20.09.2018

(Ex.P.5);

b) The Respondent No.1 University has not indicated

in the Proceeding dated 09.12.2019 (Ex.P.6) as

regards the nature of 'Enquiry' that it had

undertaken and the outcome of the Enquiry to the

effect that the reason indicated by the Writ

Petitioner for declining the offer of Associate Dean

is invalid;

c) When the decision of the Respondent No.1

University is to the effect that the Writ Petitioner

shall not be considered for appointment to any

similar post in the future, such action which

would adversely affect the service conditions of the

Writ Petitioner, therefore, should have preceded by

furnishing reasons and call for an explanation.

d) There is inordinate delay on the part of

Respondent No.1 University in communicating its

decision that the reason given by the Writ

Petitioner in his Representation dated 15.09.2018

(Ex.P.4) is invalid, inasmuch as the Respondent

No.1 University has taken 14 months to

communicate such decision.

26. Though the Memo No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dated

09.12.2019 (Ex.P.6) is not under challenge, this Court

holds that the said Proceedings are vitiated for violation of

principles of Natural Justice and therefore, the same is set

aside for the reasons indicated hereinabove.

Additional Issue-'D':

27. While so saying, this Court would also hold that since

the Writ Petitioner has slept over his right for a period of

four years without challenging the Proceedings vide Memo

No.11576/Ser.I/2008, dated 09.12.2019 (Ex.P.6), the

challenge made by the Writ Petitioner to the subsequent

appointment of the Unofficial Respondent No.4 as

Associate Dean of NTR College of Veterinary Science,

Gannavaram, vide Proc.No.350054/Ser.I/2021 dated

30.10.2023 (Ex.P1) cannot be entertained. As a

consequence, the Respondent No.1 University shall only

consider the candidature of the Writ Petitioner for all

appointments to the posts of Associate Dean and similar

posts in the future but shall not affect the appointment of

the Unofficial Respondent No.4 as Associate Dean of NTR

College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram vide

Proc.No.350054/Ser.I/2021 dated 30.10.2023 (Ex.P1).

Issue-'B':

28. It is again made clear that since the validity of

Guideline No.7 has not been challenged, this Court has not

expressed any opinion as regards the validity or otherwise

of Guideline No.7 and that the same shall be considered in

an appropriate proceedings in future.

CONCLUSION:

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.

29. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is partly

allowed. No order as to costs.

30. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in