The Managing Committee vs S.Usha Shree D/O. Vishwamber Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 529 Tel

 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                         AND
       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                              W.A.No.62 of 2016

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


       This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15743 of 2010

dt.30-09-2015.


        2.   Heard Sri Mahmood Ali, learned counsel for the

appellants and Sri Prasen Gundarapu, representing Smt.

K.Udayasri, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

3. It has been contended by the appellants that the

1st respondent was working as a lecturer in the appellants'

college and the 1st respondent has filed W.P.No.15743 of 2010

to direct the respondents including appellants to pay regular

pay scale attached to the post of lecturer and the learned

Single Judge was pleased to allow the Writ Petition directing

the appellants to pay salaries to the 1st respondent as per

Rule 7 (4) of the Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.29

dt.05-02-1987. Learned counsel for the appellants had

contended that the learned Single Judge has mechanically

allowed the Writ Petition without appreciating any of the

contentions raised by the appellants and the learned Single

Judge has also failed to appreciate the fact that the 1st

respondent was appointed as a part time lecturer that too on

temporary basis and the services of the 1st respondent were 2 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.62 of 2016

also terminated during the year 1999 in view of the non-

availability of students in a particular course. But the

learned Single Judge without appreciating any of the

contentions has allowed the Writ Petition and directed the

appellants to pay salaries in terms of the Rule 7 (4) of the

Rules of the said G.O. Therefore, the learned counsel for the

appellants had contended that appropriate orders be passed

by setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent had

contended that the 1st respondent was selected and appointed

as a lecturer in the appellants' college and the 1st respondent

was discharging her duties as a lecturer in the appellants'

college and the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the

Writ Petition filed by the 1st respondent and directed that the

appellants shall pay salaries to the 1st respondent in terms of

Rule 7 (4) of the Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.29

dt.05-02-1997.

5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent had further

contended that no doubt, the 1st respondent was terminated

by the appellants but the she has challenged the termination

order by filing W.P.No.14093 of 1999 and the said Writ

Petition was disposed of vide orders dt.17-04-2008 holding

that the termination order is contrary to Section 79 of the

A.P. Education Act, 1982 and the appellants have carried the

matter in appeal by filing W.A.No.724 of 2008 and the same 3 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.62 of 2016

was also dismissed confirming the orders passed in

W.P.No.14093 of 1999.

6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent had further

contended that the issue raised in the present Writ Appeal is

no more res integra and the identical issue has come up

before this Court in W.A.No.930 of 2006 dt.17-09-2006

wherein, it is held as under:

In our opinion, Rule 7 (4) and clause (f) of G.O.Ms.No.550 dated 22-7-1980 have salutary purpose. It is common knowledge that private educational institutions, which are proliferating year after year, are turning into commercial ventures for which profit making is the sole motto. Persons with high academic qualifications including Doctorate are exploited by the managements by paying pittances to them, despite the fact that most of these educational institutions earn huge profits. It is obviously to prevent this exploitation that the government thought it fit to stipulate clause (f) as a condition while granting permission to start the institutions and later framed Rule 7 (4) providing for payment of government scales to the teaching staff working in the private educational institutions.

and following the said orders passed by a Division Bench, the

learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition

preferred by the 1st respondent. Therefore, there are no

merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

7. This Court having considered the rival

submissions of the parties is of the considered view that the

learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition filed

by the 1st respondent by following the Division Bench

judgment in W.A.No.930 of 2006 dt.17-09-2006. Therefore, 4 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.62 of 2016

the issue is squarely covered against the appellants. The

State Government has framed the Rules in G.O.Ms.No.29

dt.05-02-1987 wherein, Rule 7 (4) of the Rules reads as

under:

"PAYMENT OF SALARIES TO STAFF:- The educational agency of any private institution shall pay salaries to its staff as per the government scales of pay and by following such procedure as may be prescribed by government from time to time, in this regard."

and the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the

appellants to follow Rule 7 (4) of the Rules in the

G.O.Ms.No.29 dt.05-02-1987. Therefore, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the impugned order dt.30-09-2015

in W.P.No.15743 of 2010 and accordingly, the Writ Appeal is

dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 10.02.2022 kvr