G. Ayyappa Shiva Kumar vs State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 141 Tel

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
                                 AND
       HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

               Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2020
                                  and
               Interlocutory Application No.3 of 2020
                                in / and

                     Writ Petition No.21366 of 2020

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)


       The composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into the

new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh

pursuant to the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014 (for short, 'the Act')

w.e.f. 02.06.2014.


2.     The Telugu Academy (7th respondent) was a Society registered

under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies

Registration Act on 31.12.1968 in the composite State of Andhra

Pradesh with Head Office in Hyderabad ( which is the new state of

Telangana) and Regional and Sub-centers throughout the composite

State of Andhra Pradesh ( i.e in the area now covered by the residuary

State of Andhra Pradesh).

3. It is an Institution mentioned at Serial No.51 of Schedule - X to

the Act whose staff, assets and liabilities have not yet been divided

among or allocated to the successor States i.e., the new State of

Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh under the ::2:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020

provisions of the Act though more than six and a half years have

elapsed since the coming into force of the Act on 02.06.2014.

4. According to the counter filed by the Higher Education

Department of State of Telangana (respondent no.3) and the Special

Chief secretary of the said department who is also Vice-Chairman of

the 7th respondent (respondent no.6), it is functioning under the

control of the Government of Telangana. Respondent no.11 is the

current Director of the Telugu Academy, Hyderabad.

5. The State of Andhra Pradesh (respondent no.4) had established

its own Telugu Academy (respondent no.10) on 26.06.2020 under the

A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, after the bifurcation of the

composite State of Andhra Pradesh with Head office in Chittoor

District of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent no.8 is

the Chairperson and Respondent No.9 is its Vice-Chairman.

6. The petitioners had been appointed by the 7th respondent on

contract / daily-wage basis as Data Entry Operators and Hamalis and

have been working from 2002 onwards.

7. In Lr.No.185,189/TA/RTI Act/2017-3 dt.15.11.2017 issued

under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the 7th respondent, it is

certified that service of -

i) petitioner No.1 was utilized from 08.05.2008 continuously, ::3:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020

ii) petitioner No.2 was utilized from 12.06.2012 continuously,

iii) petitioner No.3 was utilized from 09.01.2014 continuously,

iv) petitioner No.4 was utilized from 05.09.2003 continuously,

v) petitioner No.5 was utilized from 01.05.2012 continuously,

vi) petitioner No.6 was utilized from 14.05.2012 continuously,

vii) petitioner No.7 was utilized from 01.06.2014 continuously,

viii) petitioner No.8 was utilized from 27.07.2002 continuously,

ix) petitioner No.9 was utilized from 01.10.2012 continuously,

x) petitioner No.10 was utilized from 18.11.2002 continuously,

xi) petitioner No.11 was utilized from 05.10.2005 continuously,

xii) petitioner No.12 was utilized from 01.10.2012 continuously,

xiii) petitioner No.13 was utilized from 20.07.2002 continuously,

xiv) petitioner No.14 was utilized from 04.11.2011 continuously,

xv) petitioner No.15 was utilized from 17.10.2012 continuously, xvi) petitioner No.16 was utilized from 11.02.2013 continuously, xvii) petitioner No.17 was utilized from 01.05.2003 continuously.

The said proceeding shows that only meager wages were paid

either on daily wage basis or monthly basis. At pages 39 to 42 of the ::4:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020

Writ Petition, the service details of the petitioners have been

furnished.

W.P.No.28404 of 2017

8. Petitioners contend that they were engaged directly by the 7th

respondent as Data Entry Operators and Hamalies, that there is

employer and employee relationship between them and the 7th

respondent, that they are qualified to hold the posts and are

discharging their duties continuously from the date of their

appointment till the date of filing of the Writ Petition. They contend

that Hamalies are categorized as skilled, semi skilled and unskilled

depending on the nature of the duties they perform; while skilled

Hamalies maintain the records and undertake other office works, semi

skilled and unskilled Hamalies do the work of loading and unloading

of books sent from the Head Office, packing and dispatching them to

various colleges and book sellers in the entire District. They contend

that Data Entry Operators are paid consolidated salary as per

Government Orders and Hamalies are paid wages fixed by the District

Collectors from time to time.

9. Since employees of the 7th respondent are not allocated between

the successor entities, i.e., the 10th respondent and the 7th respondent

even after 02.06.2014, they are under the administrative control of the

7th respondent and their salaries were paid from the date of

appointment till November, 2019 by 7th respondent though all ::5:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020

petitioners are working in the Regional Centres situated in the

residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.

10. They allege that the 7th respondent because of the Andhra

nativity of the petitioners refused to pay enhanced salary/wages to

petitioners from 2013 while granting the same to those employed in

the Regional Centres in the State of Telangana and the Head Office

situated at Hyderabad.

11. Petitioner nos.1, 11 and one T. Samuel Raju, who were working

as Data Entry Operators at Guntur Branch Office of the 7th respondent

in the State of Andhra Pradesh had filed W.P.No.28404 of 2017

challenging the action of the 7th respondent and its Director, the 11th

respondent herein for not paying enhanced remuneration of

Rs.15,000/- per month to them though they were working

continuously from the date of their respective appointments for more

than 10 to 12 years and getting pay of only Rs.9,500/- per month.

They contended that similar employees engaged by the 7th respondent

in the territorial jurisdiction of Telangana were paid Rs.15,000/- by

extending benefit of G.O.Ms.No.14 dt.19.02.2016 which dealt with

enhancement of monthly remuneration of contract / out-sourced

employees to Rs.15,000/- from Rs.9,500/- per month. They contended

that they were being discriminated against.

12. By order dt.08.07.2019, W.P.No.38404 of 2017 was allowed by

this Court and a direction was given to the 7th respondent to pay the ::6:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020

enhanced remuneration of Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioners in

the said Writ Petition with all consequential benefits holding that the

7th respondent cannot discriminate against the petitioners on the

ground that they were not working in the territorial jurisdiction of the

Telangana region.

Impugned proceedings No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019

13. Petitioners contend that the 11th respondent, who is the Director

of the 7th respondent, got offended by the said order and decided to

punish the petitioners for approaching the High Court and so, he

decided to out-source the services of loading and unloading which is

done by the Hamalis and the services of Data Entry Operators to an

out-sourcing agency and issued proceedings No.96/TA/Admin/2019

dt.07.12.2019 on behalf of the 7th respondent, even though they had

been working directly on contract/daily wage basis with the 7th

respondent right from 2002.

Contentions of petitioners

14. According to petitioners, this was done with a deliberate

intention to snap the employee - employer relationship in the first

instance and eventually to discontinue the services of those working in

the Regional Centers situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

                                              ::7::                      MSR,J & TA,J
                                                                      wp_21366_2020

15. They allege that they were asked to give Aadhaar, PAN Card

and two photographs to the identified out-sourcing agencies for

enrolment by them, and since the intention of the respondent nos.7

and 11 was suspected to be to ultimately discontinue their services,

they did not furnish the said documents to the agency and

consequently the 7th respondent directed the In-charges of the

Regional Centers not to pay petitioners' wages from 01.12.2019.

16. Petitioners not only challenge the proceedings

No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019 issued by the 7th respondent on

the ground of lack of jurisdiction to do so as per the Telugu Academy

Rules, 1968 which confer such power only on the Board of Governors

of the Academy, but also seek bifurcation of the 7th respondent

between the successor States under Section 82 of the Act.

17. Petitioners rely on decision dt.07.08.2020 in B. Sambasiva

Rao vs. State of Telangana1 in relation to A.P. State Residential

Educational Institution Society established in the combined State

which is also an Institution mentioned at Serial No.41 of the Schedule

- X to the Act in respect of which certain directions had been issued

by this Court for the allocation of employees between the successor

entities set up by both States, i.e., AP Residential Educational

Institution Society (APREIS) and Telangana Residential Educational

Order dt.07.08.2020 in W.P.No.7225 of 2020 & batch (D.B.) ::8:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020

Institution Society (TREIS) and seek similar directions in regard to

the Telugu Academy also.

Interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.21366 of 2020

18. On 07.12.2020, in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.21366 of 2020,

the following interim order was passed :

"Pending further orders, proceedings No.96/TA/Admn/2019 dt.07.12.2019 issued by 7th respondent, which appear to be wholly without jurisdiction having regard to Rule 8(2)(iii) of the Rules framed by the Telugu Academy is suspended.

List on 21.12.2020.

Counter shall be filed by the next date of hearing by 7th respondent."

I.A.No.3 of 2020

19. The respondent no.7 has filed I.A.No.3 of 2020 to vacate the

above order.

20. We shall deal with the respective contentions of the parties as

under.

Consideration by this Court

21. The fact that the Telugu Academy, Hyderabad is included in

Schedule - X of the Act is admitted by the 7th respondent and also

respondent nos.3 and 6.

                                  ::9::                          MSR,J & TA,J
                                                              wp_21366_2020

22. The respondent nos.3 and 6 however contend that as per

Section 75 of the Act the Telugu Academy shall continue to provide

facilities to people of both the successor States for such period and

upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the

two successor State Governments within a period of one year from the

appointed day, or if no agreement is reached within that period within

the period which may be fixed by order of the Central Government. It

is their further case that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, i.e.,

respondent nos.2 and 4 had not reached any agreement with the

Government of Telangana (respondent no.3), that the Board of

Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh insisted the 7th respondent

not to publish any books pertaining to the Intermediate Course and so,

the 7th respondent had stopped publishing of such books for the State

of Andhra Pradesh. So there is no work for the petitioners.

23. According to them, it is functioning under the control of

Government of Telangana based on location basis and the

Government of Andhra Pradesh had established its own Academy

(respondent no.10) with Head Office in Tirupathi of Chittoor District.

24. Section 75 in our opinion, as its heading indicates, is a

provision in the Act for continuance of facilities in certain State

Institutions such as those specified in Schedule - X to the Act. It does

not deal with allocation of employees of institutions such as the 7th

respondent which is mentioned in the said Schedule.

                                      ::10::                            MSR,J & TA,J
                                                                     wp_21366_2020

25. The relevant provision which deals with division of assets and

liabilities of Schedule - X Institutions is Section 53 and the relevant

provision dealing with allocation of employees of Schedule - X

Institutions is Section 82 of the Act.

26. Section 53 states as under :

"53. (1) The assets and liabilities relating to any commercial or industrial undertaking of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh, where such undertaking or part thereof is exclusively located in, or its operations are confined to, a local area, shall pass to the State in which that area is included on the appointed day, irrespective of the location of its headquarters: Arrears of taxes. Right to recover loans and advances. Investments and credits in certain funds. Assets and liabilities of State undertakings.

Provided that where the operation of such undertaking becomes inter-State by virtue of the provisions of Part II, the assets and liabilities of--

(a) the operational units of the undertaking shall be apportioned between the two successor States on location basis; and

(b) the headquarters of such undertaking shall be apportioned between the two successor States on the basis of population ratio.

(2) Upon apportionment of the assets and liabilities, such assets and liabilities shall be transferred in physical form on mutual agreement or by making payment or adjustment through any other mode as may be agreed to by the successor States."

27. Section 82 states as under :

"On and from the appointed day, the employees of State Public Sector Undertakings, corporations and other autonomous bodies shall ::11:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020

continue to function in such undertaking, corporation or autonomous bodies for a period of one year and during this period the corporate body concerned shall determine the modalities for distributing the personnel between the two successor States."

28. In the decision of B. Sambasiva Rao (1 supra), this very

Division Bench has held, following the decisions in G. Rama Mohan

Rao and another vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and

another2, P.B. Karunakar and others vs. State of Telangana and

others3, and Rani vs. Principal Secretary, Higher Education

Department and others4, that only Section 82 governs distribution of

employees of IX and X Schedule Bodies / Entities / Institutions and

since the erstwhile APREIS is also mentioned at Serial No.41 of the X

Schedule, the division of employees of the erstwhile APREIS is

governed by Section 82 only, and that Section 77 of the Act has no

application.

It held that the successor entities to the erstwhile APREIS i.e.,

the TREIS and the APREIS would have to agree upon the modalities

for distributing the personnel of the erstwhile APREIS between them;

and the State Governments of the new State of Telangana or the

residuary State of Andhra Pradesh have no role in the fixing of

modalities for distribution of the personnel between the TREIS and

the APREIS.

  2017 (6) A.L.D. 103 (D.B.)

  2018 (3) A.L.D. 470 (D.B.)

  2017 (4) A.L.T. 173 (D.B.)
                                 ::12::                       MSR,J & TA,J
                                                           wp_21366_2020

It was also held that in the context of Section 82, the modalities

for distributing the personnel between the two successor States can

only mean the modalities for distributing the personnel between the

two successor State Public Sector undertakings, Corporations and

autonomous Bodies only and not distribution of such personnel

between the respective State Governments, as that would make

employees of such Corporations / Undertakings / Companies, etc.,

employees of the Governments of the two successor States.

It was also declared that Section 82 requires the Corporate

bodies themselves to determine the modalities for distributing its

personnel between the two successor States and that even after the

period of one year from the appointed day, the concerned corporate

bodies are not disabled from determining the modalities for

distributing their personnel between the two successor States.

It was also declared that failure to complete the exercise of a

change in the ownership of the assets and liabilities of IX and X

Schedule Entities would have no bearing on the distribution of the

employees of the Public Sector undertakings / Corporations /

Autonomous Bodies between the entities controlled exclusively by

each of the successor States.

29. This legal position is not disputed by Sri Challa Dhananjaya,

counsel for respondent no.7 and the Government Pleader for State of

Telangana, appearing for respondent nos.3 and 6.

                                      ::13::                  MSR,J & TA,J
                                                           wp_21366_2020




RE: Division of assets and liabilities

30. As regards division of assets and liabilities of the 7th

respondent, we are of the opinion that admittedly the 7th respondent

prior to the bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, i.e.,

before 02.06.2014 had Head Office in Hyderabad but regional centers

/ Branch Offices spread all over the composite State of Andhra

Pradesh.

So it was not an undertaking (i) whose operations were

confined to only the area falling within the new State of Telangana or

(ii) was exclusively located only in the area falling within the new

State of Telangana like the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

(which is exclusively located and operated within the territorial

jurisdiction of the new State of Telangana).

Therefore, Sub-Section (1) of Section 53 has no application and

the State of Telangana cannot have exclusive power over the 7th

respondent merely because the Head Office was located in the State of

Telangana. It cannot claim that all assets and liabilities solely belong

to it, and that it should control all affairs in relation to the 7th

respondent to the exclusion of the State of Andhra Pradesh and its

new entity the A.P. Telugu Academy in Chittoor District (respondent

no.10).

In our opinion, proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 53 would

operate because the operation of the Telugu Academy became inter-

                                   ::14::                     MSR,J & TA,J
                                                           wp_21366_2020

State by virtue of the Re-Organization of the composite State of

Andhra Pradesh into the new State of Telangana and the residuary

State of Andhra Pradesh under provisions of Part II of the Act, and so

the assets and liabilities of the Head Quarters shall be apportioned

between respondent nos.7 and 10 in the ratio 41.68 : 58.32 and the

assets and liabilities of the respective Regional Centers have to be

apportioned on location basis.

31. In Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education v.

Union of India & Ors.5, a similar contention was raised by the State

of Telangana and the Telangana State Education Council for Higher

Education that the assets, properties and funds lying at the then

location at Hyderabad of the A.P. State Education Council for Higher

Education, which is also an institution specified at item No.27 of

Schedule-X to the Act, belong exclusively to the Telangana State

Education Council for Higher Education,. The said view had been

accepted by the Telangana High Court but was reversed by the

Supreme Court in an Appeal filed by the A.P. State Council for

Higher Education.

The Supreme Court observed that when an existing State is

bifurcated to form two new States, there must be an equitable

bifurcation of the assets and liabilities of the statutory bodies among

the two successor States as well, to ensure the welfare of the public at

large residing within these territories.

2016(6) SCC 635 ::15:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020

The Supreme Court noted that the State of Telangana had

claimed ownership over the entire funds and assets of the erstwhile

A.P. State Council for Higher Education; that this could surely not

have been the intention of the legislature while enacting the A.P.

Reorganization Act, 2014; if the argument of the State of Telangana

that the successor State of Andhra Pradesh had absolutely no right

over the institutions in the city of Hyderabad, by virtue of the fact that

Hyderabad falls in the successor State of Telangana, is accepted on

the basis of Section 75 of the Act, then Section 47 of the Act, which

provides for the apportionment of assets and liabilities among the

successor States would become useless and nugatory.

The Supreme Court set aside the action of certain banks

freezing the bank accounts of the erstwhile A.P. State Council for

Higher Education as untenable in law and set it aside. It declared that

the assets of the erstwhile A.P. State Council for Higher Education be

divided between the two successor States in the population ratio of

58:42 as provided under Section 2(h) of the Act, if the two successor

States are agreeable to it or in the alternative the Central Government

should constitute a Committee and arrive at an agreement.

32. The ratio in the above said judgment i.e that merely because

the Head Office of a State Institution happens to be in Hyderabad in

the jurisdictional area of the State of Telangana after 02.06.2014, the

Telangana State or the successor entity of the State Institution created ::16:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020

by the Telangana State alone cannot completely take over the assets of

such institution, is clearly applicable to the case the 7th respondent as

well.

33. So we hold that because the Head Office of the 7th respondent

happened to be in Hyderabad in the new State of Telangana, neither

the State of Telangana nor the 11th respondent acting under the control

of the said State can claim all the assets of the 7th respondent to the

exclusion of the 10th respondent, the Andhra Pradesh Telugu

Academy.

34. The 10th respondent has also rights in respect of not only the

assets of the 7th respondent but also in respect of the employees of the

7th respondent and no unilateral decisions can be taken by the 7th

respondent/11th respondent, such as the one impugned in this Writ

Petition in proceeding No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019.

35. Though in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents 3,6

and 7 they have taken a contrary stand, it is untenable in view of the

decision in A.P. State Council of Higher Education (5 supra) and

the order in B.Sambasiva Rao(1 supra).

36. The respondent nos.8 and 10 through the Special Government

Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh, specifically support this

view.

                                   ::17::                      MSR,J & TA,J
                                                            wp_21366_2020

It is the contention of respondents 8 and 10 that though the

erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh in its Memo No.10411 / SR

/ A.1 / 2014 dt.14.05.2014 decided that the Telugu Academy shall be

bifurcated as per the provisions contained in the A.P. Reorganization

Act, 2014 preferably before the appointed day, the then Director of

Telugu Academy, Hyderabad who hails from the State of Telangana

with ulterior motive did not initiate any action for bifurcation because

of which employees and students of the A.P. State are suffering a lot.

It is contended that in all Schedule - X Institutions including

the Telugu Academy, common resources of both the States were

invested over a period of time when the State was a combined one, but

employees belonging to Andhra Pradesh working in these Institutions

at various places were being discriminated by not allowing them

enhanced salaries and other benefits on par with employees of the

Telugu Academy (7th respondent) at Hyderabad in Telangana State. It

is also stated that apportionment in respect of staff and funds has not

been initiated in the ratios fixed in the Act.

It is stated that an amount of Rs.253.77 crores is lying in

various Banks in the form of Fixed Deposits as on 01.06.2014 which

had now become Rs.340 crores and that the entire amount is being

completely used by the 7th respondent alone without apportioning it

between the entities of both States, i.e., respondent nos.7 and 10 in the

ratio 41.68 : 58.32. It is contended that unless the same are ::18:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020

apportioned, the 10th respondent is not in a position to run and the

bifurcation of staff would be meaningful only if the funds are

apportioned.

37. We find considerable force in the above submissions of the

respondent nos.8 and 10 who support petitioners' contentions with

regard to both bifurcation of staff and also division of assets and

liabilities of the 7th respondent after 02.06.2014.

38. We therefore reject the contention of respondents 3, 6 and 7 that

they have exclusive control of all activities of the 7th respondent

including employees and assets on location basis i.e. because the Head

Office of the 7th respondent is located at Hyderabad in the State of

Telangana.

RE: Allocation of employees

39. We have already referred to the letter dt.15.11.2017 issued to

the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005 showing the

duration of employment of the petitioners which for some petitioners

started in 2002 itself.

The attention of the Counsel for respondents 3, 6 & 7 was

drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary State of

Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3)6 and the mandate contained in the said

decision to Government and Government Entities/Instrumentalities to

have a regular process of recruitment or appointment periodically.

2006(4) SCC 1 ::19:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020

They were asked to explain why the petitioners were being

engaged either on contract basis or daily wage basis for such a long

time, but no satisfactory response is received from the said

respondents.

The fact that some of the petitioners have been engaged for

over 10 years is an indication of regularity of work available and such

positions ought to be filled on a regular basis by applying the relevant

rules of recruitment, but it appears that the 7th respondent deliberately

did not do so, and exploited the petitioners by paying them low wages.

This conduct of the 7th respondent is akin to an unfair labour practice.

40. It is the stand of the 7th respondent in para 13 of the counter

affidavit filed by it that petitioners were neither appointed through

selection process nor on contract basis and they were engaged on

daily basis only.

This plea cannot be accepted as regards the petitioners who are

Data Entry Operators because there is a categorical finding recorded

in the order dt.08.07.2019 in WP.No.38404 of 2019 that they were

appointed on contract basis and that they were continued even on the

date of the disposal of the Writ Petition on contract basis. This finding

has attained finality.

Petitioners assert that they perform all works of regular

employees in the respective regional centers of the 7th respondent in

the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and we accept the said plea.

                                  ::20::                       MSR,J & TA,J
                                                            wp_21366_2020

41. By virtue of the impugned proceedings No.96/TA/Admin/2019

dt.07.12.2019 issued by the 7th respondent, the status of the petitioners

is sought to be changed from contract/daily wage employees to

employees engaged directly by 7th respondent to that of employment

indirectly through an outsourcing agency.

42. The counsel for respondents 3, 6 & 7 is unable to explain how

engagement of petitioners through outsourcing agency is permitted by

the Bye-laws of the 7th respondent because under Bye-law 8(b), such a

method of appointment is not at all mentioned. On this count also the

impugned proceedings cannot be sustained.

43. The stand of the 7th respondent is that in a review meeting of

the 7th respondent with the Secretary to Government, Education

Department, the latter had insisted that the daily wage system must be

stopped and the 7th respondent should take up works on outsourcing

basis as per G.O.Ms.No.2246 Finance (SMPC) Department

dt.07.06.2007; that the 7th respondent followed it and placed Action

Taken Report before 130th Standing Committee for Administrative

Matters held on 16.01.2020; and that the Standing Committee noted

the said information.

44. According to the respondents 3, 6 & 7 the Secretary to

Government, Education Department, State of Telangana is the Vice-

Chairman of the Board of Governors and is the Chairman also of the

Standing Committee for Administrative Matters of Telugu Academy.

                                  ::21::                     MSR,J & TA,J
                                                          wp_21366_2020

45. Even so, in our opinion, he alone cannot decide what the

Standing Committee for Administrative Matters is supposed to do.

46. Moreover item No.6 of the Minutes of the Meeting/Resolutions

passed on 16.01.2020 of the 130th Standing Committee for

Administrative Matters (filed by the respondents) shows that the issue

of outsourcing of services of Data Entry Operators, Sanitation,

Maintenance, Books Loading/Unloading as per G.O.Rt.No.2246

dt.07.06.2007 was not specifically approved by the said Standing

Committee and the Minutes show "that it was informed" about it and

the Standing Committee "noted" the said information.

There was admittedly no prior approval of the Standing

Committee on Administrative Matters taken by the 7th respondent

before issuing the impugned proceedings on 07.12.2019 and there is

also no post-facto approval for it.

47. In our opinion, proceedings No.96/TA/Admin/2019

dt.07.12.2019 reflect the decision of the only 11th respondent, who had

no such authority or jurisdiction to take such decision which, even

according to him, ought to have been taken by the Standing

Committee.

48. As per the Rule 8(2)(iii) of the Telugu Academy Rules, it is the

Board of Governors which has the power to appoint and control

Officers and Staff for the efficient management of the affairs of the

Academy and to regulate their recruitment and conditions of service.

                                 ::22::                        MSR,J & TA,J
                                                            wp_21366_2020

The Director of the Academy (11th respondent) is merely a Member

Secretary of the Board of Governors. Without the concurrence of the

Board of Governors, the 11th respondent could not have issued the

impugned proceedings No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019. This

also vitiates the impugned proceedings.

49. That apart, we have already held that the 10th respondent has

also rights in respect of not only the assets of the 7th respondent but

also in respect of the employees of the 7th respondent and no unilateral

decisions can be taken by the 7th respondent/11th respondent, such as

the one impugned in this Writ Petition in proceeding

No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019.

50. It is unfortunate that there is no member representing the

interests of the 10th respondent or the State of Andhra Pradesh in the

Standing Committee for Administrative Matters of the 7th respondent.

The Secretary to Government, Education Department, State of

Telangana alone could not have given any directions to the Standing

Committee. This is blatant usurpation of power by the said official

and the 11th respondent contrary to the provisions of the Act, and any

decision taken by them such as the one contained in the impugned

proceedings dt.07.12.2019, has no legal sanctity.

51. Regarding the contention of the respondents that petitioners did

not questioned work orders dt.31.10.2019 and dt.8.11.2019 issued to

the Outsourcing Agencies by the 7th respondent is concerned, they are ::23:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020

not actionable proceedings and the proceedings dt.07.12.2019 which

affect petitioners' rights alone were rightly challenged by them

because from 01.12.2019 their salaries/wages had been stopped by the

7th respondent without any jurisdiction.

52. It may be that the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education,

Andhra Pradesh asked the 7th respondent on 08.05.2015 not to print

Intermediate Text Books for the students of the State of Andhra

Pradesh, but nothing prevented the 7th respondent to continue to

publish and sell books for Under-Graduate, Post-Graduate, D.Ed. and

B.Ed. and other competitive books in the State of Andhra Pradesh,

other than books for Intermediate course and generate revenue. This

is an indication of how the 7th respondent proposes to slowly close the

activities of the 7th respondent in all the regional centers of Andhra

Pradesh. In fact, the above defence of the 7th respondent was rejected

in WP.No.38404 of 2017 and Batch, specifically.

53. For all the aforesaid reasons,

a) Proceedings No.96/TA/Admin/2019 dt.07.12.2019 issued by

the 7th respondent is declared to be illegal, contrary to the

Bye-laws and Rules of the 7th respondent, Section 82 of the

A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 and is declared to be one

issued without jurisdiction, and is set aside;

b) the 7th respondent is directed to pay wages to the petitioners

on par with those employed in similar capacities in the State ::24:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_21366_2020

of Telangana from 01.12.2019 within six (06) weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall continue

to pay the same till allocation of the petitioners is made as

set out below between the 7th respondent and 10th

respondent;

c) the 7th and 10th respondents shall discuss with each other and

agree on the modalities/guidelines for allocation of

employees of the 7th respondent as on 02.06.2014 including

the petitioners within two (02) months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order and then allocate the

employees as per the said norms within one (01) month of

finalization of modalities/guidelines;

d) the assets and liabilities of the 7th respondent as on 02.06.2014 shall be apportioned between the 10th respondent and the 7th respondent as per proviso to Section 53(1) of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 in the ratio 58.32 : 41.68 within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

e) the respondents 3, 6 & 7 shall pay costs of Rs.3,000/- to

each of the petitioners within four (04) weeks.

54. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs. I.A.No.3

of 2020 is dismissed and order dt.07-12-2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 is

made absolute.

                                 ::25::                    MSR,J & TA,J
                                                        wp_21366_2020

55. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

____________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

______________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J

Date: 22-01-2021 Ndr/gra