Director National Institute For ... vs Y. Rama Krishna, Secbad
2022 Latest Caselaw 6296 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                              AND

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

               Writ Appeal No.1792 of 2013


JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


        This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellants assailing

the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in

Writ Petition No.14859 of 2007, dated 22.06.2012.


2.      Heard Mr. Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel for the

appellants and Mr. Srikanth, learned counsel for the

respondent.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants

contended that the respondent responded to a notification

issued by the appellants for the post of Lecturer; as per the

said notification, the qualifications required for the post of

Lecturer is M.A. / M.Sc. with B.Ed. (Special Education)

from a recognized University or equivalent certificate with

minimum of three years of experience of teaching to the

visually impaired students; the respondent was appointed ::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1792_2013

as a Lecturer with the appellants vide proceedings dated

16.06.2005 with certain terms and conditions; as the

respondent has violated Condition No.3 of the appointment

letter, the services of the respondent were terminated in

accordance with Clause No.3(i) of the appointment order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended

that two posts were notified : one post at Hyderabad, and

another post, which was earmarked for 'OBC', at

Bhuvaneshwar; since the respondent was a candidate

belonging to 'OBC', his appointment has to be treated as

appointment against the post at Bhuvaneshwar, and

Condition No.3 in the appointment order has made it very

clear that the services of respondent would be terminated

at any point of time; aggrieved by the order of termination

dated 28.06.2007, the respondent approached this Court

by filing Writ Petition No.14859 of 2007; vide order dated

22.06.2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court was

pleased to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the

termination orders by directing that the respondent be

continued in service, without appreciating the fact that the

respondent was appointed in a post which was advertised ::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1792_2013

at Bhuvaneshwar, and the post which was advertised at

Hyderabad was a lien post and it was not a regular post;

and therefore, prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders

in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders passed by

the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition 14859 of 2007,

dated 22.06.2012.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent contended that though the respondent is a

Member belonging to 'OBC' and secured highest marks, he

should have been appointed against an 'Un-Reserved' post

which was advertised in the notification; the learned Single

Judge has rightly set aside the termination order;

moreover, there was no interim suspension of the order

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition 14859

of 2007, dated 22.06.2012; by virtue of the said order of

the learned Single Judge, the respondent is being

continued in service and later the services of the

respondent was also regularized, and the appellants are

continuing the respondent with all consequential benefits;

and there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is

liable to be dismissed.

                               ::4::                    AKS,J & RRN,J
                                                       wa_1792_2013

6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions

made by the parties, is of the considered view that the

termination order is dated 28.06.2007, and we are in the

year 2022; and in pursuance of the order passed by the

learned Single Judge in Writ Petition 14859 of 2007, dated

22.06.2012, the appellants are continuing the respondent

in service with all consequential benefits. Moreover, the

respondent has secured the highest marks in the

selections. Therefore, his case has to be understood that

he has to be appointed against the 'Un-Reserved' vacancy

and he does not fall under Clause No.3(i) of the

appointment order which was notified in the notification.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition

14859 of 2007, dated 22.06.2012. Moreover, the order

passed by the learned Single Judge was also not

suspended by this Court which would mean that the

orders passed by the learned Single Judge were already

implemented. On this ground also, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned ::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1792_2013

Single Judge in Writ Petition 14859 of 2007, dated

22.06.2012.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if

any in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

Date : 01.12.2022 Ndr