Telangana High Court

Mr. V. Venkat Kanna, Warangal vs Registrar, Kakatiya University, ... on 8 July, 2022

Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili, N.V.Shravan Kumar

                                      1




      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                                     AND
          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                             W.A.No.458 OF 2015

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

      This writ appeal is directed against the order dated

30.04.2015 passed in W.P.No.11145 of 2015 by the learned

Single Judge.

      Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellant, learned Government Pleader

appearing      for     the     2nd    respondent          and   Sri    Adhi

Venkateswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Kakatiya

University appearing for the 1st respondent.

It is the case of the appellant that he was working as

Assistant Professor in the Department of Public

Administration and Human Resource Management,

Kakatiya University, Warangal, on ad hoc basis, since 1992

onwards. While so, the 1st respondent-University has issued

Notification on 10.10.2003. He responded to the said

notification and interviews were held on 19.06.2005. But

the said selection could not be materialized as the 1st

respondent-University has cancelled the selections vide

proceedings dated 24.03.2015. Hence, he approached this

Court by filing W.P.No.11145 of 2015 seeking a direction

to the 1st respondent-University to constitute a selection

committee in compliance with the guidelines issued by the

University Grants Commission and G.O.Ms.No.208,

Higher Education (UE.II.I) Department, dated 29.06.1999

and conduct interview for the post of Assistant Professor in

the Department of Public Administration (Human

Resource Management) in the OC category pursuant to

Notification No.2 of 2003, dated 10.10.2003. A learned

Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition vide

order dated 30-04-2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the

present writ appeal is filed.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had

contended that without appreciating any of the contentions

raised by the appellant, the learned Single Judge erroneously

dismissed the writ petition and also imposed costs of

Rs.5,000/-. Learned counsel had further contended that in

all, three posts were notified for the post of Assistant

Professor in the Public Administration and Human

Resource Management Department and one post was

reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, and the other two

posts were meant for Open Category (Woman) and Open

Category (General). Since the petitioner could not come

within the zone of consideration, his case was not

considered and finally, the University vide proceedings dated

24.03.2015 has cancelled the selections. Learned counsel

further contended that appropriate orders be passed in the

writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned

Single Judge and directing the University to appoint the

petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st

respondent-University had contended that since grave

irregularities have been occurred in the interviews which

were held on 19.06.2005 pursuant to the Notification dated

10.10.2003, the University has rightly cancelled the

selections vide proceedings dated 24.03.2015 and the

learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant had submitted that atleast the costs imposed on

the petitioner be waived.

The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ

petition has categorically held as under:

"It is thus very clear that the writ petitioner has been taking recourse to protracted litigation on one pretext or the other with the fond hope that this Court will exercise its compassion and sympathy and would grant one interim direction or the other which can either delay the entire process of selections and or would ensure that the petitioner is continued in service in the first respondent-University as an Assistant Professor on ad hoc basis even though he has not been selected by the Selection Committee, by drawing the salary and allowances attached to the said post like any other regular teacher does.

The University in it's communication dated 24.03.2015 has clearly brought out that, as against three posts of Assistant Professors notified, the Selection Committee selected and recommended only two candidates and it did not recommend any candidate for the remaining third post meant for open competition. Consequently, the Executive Council of the University approved the selections of those two candidates and notified the same on 21.06.2005. Those two selected candidates were aleady appointed. They are working on regular basis as Assistant Professors in the same department namely, Department of Public Administration and Human Resource Management of the first respondent-University where the petitioner is also functioning. Thus, the petitioner is thoroughly aware that the selections have been finalized only for two posts and the third post has not been recommended to be filled up. He has been imagining various varieties of reasons for his non-selection, including lack of subject experts of Labour Law in the Selection Committee. Sri R.Raghunandan, learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the petitioner would urge that, when once there is no subject expert of Labour Law included in the Selection Committee, the selections get vitiated as the Selection Committee could not have assessed the true merit of the writ petitioner. At the very outset, once the Division Bench of this Court rejected the plea relating to composition of the Selection Committee by it's judgment in W.P.No.13824 of 2005, no such plea can be urged or

raked up once again. Further, the Selection Committee is not constituted to select an Assistant Professor of Law, for it to comprise of any Professor who was teaching Law.

In this context, it will be relevant to notice that the notification dated 10.10.2003, which is placed at page No.78 of the additional material paper book filed along with WPMP No.15510 of 2015, it is made clear that one post is set apart for Public Administration subject specialization, while one post has been set apart for Human Resource Management, while the third is left open as general subject. That is perhaps, the reason why the University in its order dated 24.03.2015 has averred that the petitioner is in fact not qualified to be considered for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration and Human Resource Management. There is no whisper of a contention urged in that regard.

For all the aforementioned reasons, I, consider that the present writ petition is a clear case of abuse of the process of this Court intended for deriving undue benefit by the petitioner to the detriment of the interests of the University. Hence, I have no hesitation to dismiss this writ petition at the admission stage, with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Authority within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order."

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the

learned Single Judge has categorically held that against three

posts of Assistant Professors notified, the Selection

Committee selected and recommended only two candidates

and it did not recommend any candidate for the remaining

third post which was meant for Open Competition.

Consequently, the Executive Council of the University

approved the selections of those two candidates and

notified the same on 21.06.2005, and those two selected

candidates were already appointed. The appellant was

aware that the selections have been finalized only in respect

of two posts and the third post has not been recommended