Telangana High Court

R V N S Murthy vs Angrau,Registrar,Hyd, 3 on 23 August, 2022

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                          AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                    WRIT PETITION No.6390 of 2016

ORDER:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


     Heard         Mr.        R.V.N.S.Murthy,                 petitioner/party-in-

person and Mr. Bhaskar Gandham, learned standing

counsel for Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University,

Hyderabad.


2.   By filing this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution        of     India,       petitioner           seeks   quashing     of

proceedings dated 22.05.2007 of first respondent granting

promotions to respondent Nos.3 and 4 as Assistant

Registrars and further seeks a declaration that the Andhra

Pradesh Agricultural University (Administrative and

Accounts Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (briefly, '1981

Regulations') are unconstitutional. Petitioner seeks

promotion to the posts of Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar

and Registrar with consequential benefits.

3. Averments made in the writ affidavit are haphazard

and are in an inchoate manner. With great difficulty, it

could be culled out from the materials on record that at the

relevant point of time petitioner was working as

Administrative Officer in the College of Food Science and

Technology at Bapatla under the first respondent which

was equivalent to the post of Assistant Registrar. With the

grievance that first respondent was not following the

provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate

Service Rules, 1996 in the matter of appointment to the

post of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint

Registrar, petitioner filed W.P.No.24888 of 2011 before this

Court. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned

Single Judge vide the order dated 08.09.2011 in the

following manner:

The petitioner has assumed to himself, several facts and felt that gross injustice was done to him. He is under the impression that the posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar in the University administration are to be filled by way of selection and that had such a procedure been adopted, he would have been entitled to be given notional promotion up to the post of Joint Registrar, by this time.

The basis for the presumption of the petitioner is that he became Superintendent notionally in the year 2003 and on completion of two years in that post, which is also notional, he ought to have been empanelled for

appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar. He carried similar presumptions with a gap of two years up to the stage of Joint Registrar.

The Regulations made by the University in exercise of statutory power clearly mandate that the appointment to the said posts is purely by way of promotion from the immediately lower categories. Therefore, one has to wait for his turn for promotion, after his seniors in the cadre. There is nothing to suggest in the Regulations that the State Rules apply for the appointment to the posts referred to above. Further, nowhere in the State Rules, these posts are mentioned.

Assuming that the appointment to the said posts is by way of selection, it is just unimaginable that a person, on acquiring the eligibility to be considered, would be selected or appointed, as a matter of course. It is ultimately for the Departmental Promotion Committee, wherever such provision is made, to select the candidate. The whole approach of the petitioner is untenable or is misconceived.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

4. Not content with the above, petitioner again ventured

to file W.P.No.27073 of 2011 before this Court assailing the

1981 Regulations and further seeking a direction to the

first respondent to promote him to the post of Deputy

Registrar, Joint Registrar and Registrar of the first

respondent. The writ petition was dismissed on

28.09.2011. Learned Single Judge held as under:

The petitioner does not dispute that the University is conferred with the power to frame Regulations. The grounds pointed out by him for challenging the Regulations are frivolous and none of them are referable to any settled principles of law. He proceeds on the assumption that the services in the Universities are governed by Article 309 of the Constitution of India. A reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition discloses that the petitioner felt himself to be conversant with the entire gamut of service law, because he obtained degree in Bachelor of law. The tone and tenor of the affidavit is objectionable. W.P.No.24888 of 2011 filed by him, in this very context, was dismissed in the recent past. If he felt aggrieved by that order, he could have preferred a writ appeal. However, he has chosen to file this writ petition as though, it is either continuation of the earlier writ petition or an appeal against the order passed therein.

This Court notices that the petitioner is reeling under the impression that he is the most meritorious among the administrative staff of the University and that the University is denying itself, the services of such a person. Another grievance of the petitioner appears to be that in the organization, which he left more than a decade ago, his contemporaries are working at higher places. It is not as if the petitioner joined the services of the University as a Scientist in a rare field of research. His entry into the service was Stenographer, and with each passing day, he is feeling that he has crossed all barriers of excellence and merit, and was unnecessarily denied his rise to the top executive position. If one takes into account the manner in which the petitioner pursued the proceedings in the recent past, a serious doubt would arise, as to whether he is paying any attention to the service in the University at all. In the Court also, the manner of his presentation was very objectionable.

This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

5. While dismissing the writ petition this Court noted

that the manner of presentation by the petitioner was very

objectionable. He had approached this Court by not

engaging counsel but as a party-in-person.

6. Petitioner challenged order dated 28.09.2011

dismissing W.P.No.27073 of 2011 by filing writ appeal

No.310 of 2012. By judgment dated 25.06.2013 the appeal

was dismissed. Division Bench held as under:

We have gone through the impugned order as well as the writ affidavit of the appellant. The affidavit is very vague and the entire affidavit does not disclose on what grounds he is challenging the Regulations. The appellant has tried to project his case that the Regulations are illegal and also tried to submit that Rules 5 and 6 of the Service Rules have to be applied to the employees of the 1st respondent- University. But, he has not made out any grounds in this regard even while arguing the case. He also failed to point out any illegality in the Regulations framed by the 1st respondent-University. The learned Single Judge observed that the writ affidavit is vague and the grounds pointed out by him for challenging the Regulations are frivolous and none of them are referable to any settled principles of law and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition, which cannot be faulted. It is to be seen that the 1st respondent-

University has its own Rules and Regulations framed under the relevant Act governing the University, as such, the question of complying with Rules 5 and 6 of the Service Rules does not arise. Further, there is no ground in the writ affidavit that the said Service Rules have to be followed by the University. More so, the appellant had filed W.P.No.24888 of 2011 with the same prayer and the same was dismissed by order dated 08.09.2011 which became final as observed by the learned Single Judge, as the appellant had not chosen to file any appeal against the said order. The appellant cannot once again file the present writ petition with the same prayer which is hit by the principles of res judicata.

In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. While dismissing the writ appeal, the Division Bench

observed that the affidavit filed by the petitioner was very

vague and did not disclose on what grounds he had

challenged the 1981 Regulations.

8. Against dismissal of the writ appeal, petitioner

preferred S.L.P.(C) No.18120 of 2014 before the Supreme

Court. There also petitioner appeared in person. By order

dated 02.02.2016, the SLP was dismissed.

9. On a perusal of the order dated 02.02.2016, it is seen

that the Supreme Court observed that the petitioner-in-

person was not in a position to explain the real grievance

involved in the litigation. Accordingly, Supreme Court

requested Senior Counsel Mr. Yasobant Das to appear as

amicus curiae and he appeared as amicus curiae. Order

dated 02.02.2016 being relevant, the same is extracted in

its entirety as under:

Heard Mr. Yasobant Das, learned senior counsel, who graciously agreed to our request to appear as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner, who earlier appeared as a party-in-person and we found him not in a position to explain the real grievance involved in this litigation.

After hearing Mr. Das, learned Amicus Curiae, we find that the petitioner initially joined in the Respondent No.1/University as a Stenographer. Subsequently he was shifted to a College run by the University itself. Thereafter, according to him, he was promoted as Superintendent by orders of Court. Be that as it may, in the year 2011 he filed a writ petition in the High Court in W.P.No.24888/2011 for a declaration to the effect that the action of respondent No.1/University in not complying with the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 in the context of promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar was illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 08.09.2011. While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court held that the promotion to those posts were all governed by Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University

(Administrative and Accounts officers) Service Regulations framed in the year 1981 by virtue of the powers provided under Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Universities Act, 1963.

The said order became final and conclusive. However, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.27073 of 2011 challenging the 1981 Regulations framed by the University and contended that promotions to the post referred to above were to be made by applying Rules 5 and 6 of the State Service Rules. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 28.09.2011. The petitioner challenged the same by filing Writ Appeal No.310 of 2012. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench took the view that the second writ petition of the petitioner was hit by the principles of res judicata in the light of the dismissal of his earlier writ petition, namely W.P.No.24888/2011 by the order dated 08.09.2011.

Though, we do not find the reasoning of the Division Bench more appropriate, still we do not find any scope to entertain this special leave petition, inasmuch as we fined that the grievance of the petitioner pertains to non- consideration of his claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar from the year 2005 onwards till he came to be superannuated in the year 2014. According to the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, the feeder cadres are Superintendent, Special Category Stenographers in the Administrative Office in the Colleges and Research Stations, that as the petitioner was working as Superintendent and having passed the account test as per Regulation 8 of the 1981 Regulations, he was entitled to be included within the zone for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar. That apart, the other grievance of the petitioner is that under Regulation 10(2) of the 1965 Regulations all promotions should be

made on the grounds of merit and ability and seniority to be considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal.

The sum and substance of the claim of the petitioner is that in the light of the said Regulation 10(2) of the 1965 Regulations, he was eligible to be considered by including him in the zone of consideration which the respondent failed to do. The selections came to be made in the year 2005 onwards, wherein according to him, his claim to be considered within the zone was not made. In support of his submission, Mr. Das, learned Amicus Curiae, relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 21.11.1985 passed in Writ Appeal No.586/1979 and Writ Appeal No.329/1980.

However, forceful the claim may be, since that was not the ground that was raised nor prayed for in either of the writ petitions, namely W.P.No.24888/2011 or W.P.No.27073 of 2011 there is no scope for considering such a claim which would have necessitated the challenge to the notification for selection as well as by impleading the selected candidates etc. In the absence of such a challenge made it is well neigh possible to consider the same in this proceeding.

Therefore, leaving it open for the petitioner to work out his remedy, if any, in an appropriate manner, this special leave petition stands dismissed.

10. While dismissing the SLP, Supreme Court left it open

to the petitioner to work out his remedy, if any, in an

appropriate manner.

11. Taking cue from the above, the present writ petition

came to be filed in the year 2016. We have already noticed

that challenge to the 1981 Regulations was made in

W.P.No.27073 of 2011 which was rejected. Writ appeal

No.310 of 2012 filed against said rejection order was

dismissed. SLP filed against dismissal of writ appeal was

also dismissed.

12. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court had

observed that the petitioner cannot go on raising the same

grievances which were already rejected. In the present writ

petition also, challenge has been made to the 1981

Regulations on the same vague grounds by contending that

the 1981 Regulations only follow seniority and not merit.

We are unable to accept such vague and untenable

contentions of the petitioner. We see no merit in the writ

petition. However, before parting with the record, we would

like to refer to the conduct of the petitioner before this

Court.

13. Already in the order dated 28.09.2011 while

dismissing W.P.No.27073 of 2011, this Court had observed

that the manner of presentation of the petitioner who all

along appeared in person before the Court was very

objectionable. The subsequent conduct of the petitioner in

the present proceeding was recorded in the order dated

11.10.2017 which reads as under:

Despite being specifically informed that it would not be possible for us to take up a Writ Petition, which was filed in the year 2016, for out of turn hearing, Sri R.V.N.S.Murthy - party-in-person, repeatedly insisted that his Writ Petition be taken up for hearing immediately. We told him that an out of turn hearing, of a 2016 Writ Petition, would not be justified when Writ Petitions of the year 2001 onwards are still pending on our board, and as S.L.P. (C) No.18120 of 2014 filed by him was dismissed by the Supreme Court only on 07.02.2016, leaving it open to him to work out his remedy in an appropriate manner.

The party-in-person, however, kept shouting in Court that his case involved large public interest, and should therefore be heard immediately. He then removed his belt, tied it around his neck, and threatened to hang himself in Court if his request was not acceded to. We had no alternative but to call for the Police Officer, request him to lead the party-in-person outside Court, and detain him within the Court premises lest he carry out his threat to hang himself.

The unruly behaviour of the party-in-person in Court, his act of removing his belt and tying it around his neck within the Court hall, and his threat to kill himself, prima

facie, amount to interference with the administration of justice, and to be in Contempt of Court.

He is, therefore, called upon to show cause why action should not be taken against him under the Contempt of Courts Act.

The Registrar (Judicial) shall forthwith take the party- in-person into custody, and detain him within the Court premises, till the notice under the Contempt of Courts Act is issued to him. He shall, therefore, be released and escorted outside the High Court precincts.

In view of his unruly behaviour in the Court hall today, and to ensure that such events do not recur, Sri R.V.N.S.Murthy, party-in-person, shall not be permitted to enter the High Court precincts except on the date his Writ Petition is listed, or on the specific directions of this Court.

14. Though the writ petition being devoid of merit is

liable to be dismissed on that count, however considering

the conduct of the petitioner he is also not entitled to any

consideration of this Court.

15. While dismissing the writ petition, we thought of

imposing costs on the petitioner as he continued to file one

frivolous petition after the other and conducting himself in

an objectionable manner, however we have restrained

ourselves from doing so considering the fact that petitioner

is a retired employee.

16. Therefore, on due consideration, we do not find any

merit at all in the writ petition which is accordingly