The Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs Syed Baba Moinuddin Quadri,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1662 Tel

Items No.36-37
      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                 AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
                      W.A.Nos.60 & 86 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.     This order is in continuation of the order passed on 10.06.2021

on which date, on noticing that the order dated 01.10.2019 impugned

by the Department in W.A.No.86 of 2021 was a consent order

wherein, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State had

submitted before the learned Single Judge that the Government had

already issued instructions to the Commissionerate of Collegiate

Education to implement G.O.Rt.No.983 dated 20.12.2012 and had

also issued a Memo dated 27.08.2013 and that the respondent No.2

would take appropriate steps to implement the said G.O, we had

requested learned counsel for the appellants to address us on the

maintainability of the aforesaid appeal.

2. For the sake of completion of facts, we may add here that the

Department had approached the learned Single Judge by filing a

review application for seeking review of the order dated 01.10.2019

which was rejected vide order dated 29.01.2021. The said rejection

order is the subject matter of W.A.No.60 of 2021.

3. Today, Mr. A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government

Pleader appears for the State and states on instructions that the

appellants have implemented G.O.Rt.No.983 dated 20.12.2012 and

granted notional promotion to the respondent No.1 on the post of

Principal of the respondent No.2 since he had superannuated by then.

He submits that subsequently, on going through the records, it

transpired that the respondent No.1 was not eligible for being

promoted to the post of Principal, as he did not possess a Ph.D

Degree. He therefore submits that the present appeals may be closed

with a clarification that the concession given by the Department in

W.P.No.8761 of 2013 shall be not be treated as a precedent in any

other matter, as G.O.Rt.No.983 dated 20.12.2012 came to be issued

on an erroneous presumption and misappreciation of the facts of the

case.

4. In view of the submission made by learned Special Government

Pleader appearing for the State, as recoded hereinabove, the present

appeals are closed along with the pending applications, if any, while

clarifying that the consent order 01.10.2019 passed in W.P.No.8761 of

2013 shall not be treated as a precedent in any other matter in the

future.

______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

17.06.2021 JSU/PLN