Ch. Sravanthi, vs Kakatiya University, Rep. By Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1556 Tel

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

                      WRIT APPEAL No.765 OF 2016

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

21.07.2016          passed        by     the      learned       Single   Judge   in

W.P.No.22835 of 2016.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that Kakatiya

University issued a Notification dated 31.12.2009 inviting

applications for various Assistant Professors and certain

persons being aggrieved by their non-selection came up before

this Court.        One writ petition in W.P.No.12563 of 2010 was

preferred by Dr. N.Vinatha Naini impleading Ch. Srvanthi as

respondent No.5 therein, who is the present appellant before

this Court. The appointment of the present appellant was under

challenge and the learned Single Judge, by an order dated

28.02.2011, has set aside the appointment of the present

appellant and other appointments also. Various writ appeals

i.e., W.A.No.233 of 2011 and batch were preferred in the matter.

A Division Bench of this Court, while passing a common

judgment dated 19.03.2015 in W.A.No.233 of 2011 and batch,

has dismissed the writ appeals upholding the judgment of the

learned Single Judge. The judgment delivered by the Division

Bench reflects that the selection was held to be improper and

the matter was to be placed before the Executive Council.

Against the judgment dismissing the writ appeals, the matter

has finally gone before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has again dismissed the Special Leave

to Appeal (C) No.13827 of 2015, by an order dated 11.05.2015,

which is reproduced as under:-

"Heard Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. V. Giri learned senior counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Rao pointed out that the contesting private respondent namely, M. Radhakrishnan, S/o Sathiah, first respondent in SLP (C) 13827 of 2015 is no longer in the service of the State of Andhra Pradesh and since he has joined the Osmania University as Assistant Professor of Zoology. One other factor which the Division Bench has itself noted is that when the matter was pending before the Single Judge, during the pendency of the revision, the State Government constituted a Committee to look into the irregularities committed by the University by GORT NO. 82 dated 11th February, 2011. The Committee submitted its Report on 26th March, 2011. The State Government, based on the Report of the Committee, issued orders setting aside the selections for taking up the process afresh. It is further noted that while the selected candidates in Botany Department challenged the said Government Order and got stay of the operation and implementation of the same, the candidates of the Zoology Department did not challenge the said Government Order.

Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in SLP (C) NO.13869 of 2015 submitted that the Government passed an order setting aside the selection made

by the University which was the subject matter of challenge in the main proceedings. The same came to be passed when the subject matter of challenge was partly decided before the Division Bench.

Be that s it may, we find that the Division Bench after finding that Ordinance (2) was not followed by the selection Committee in strict senso, the issue calls for fresh look and with that view it has given the following direction in paragraph 43:-

"We are informed that the Selection Committee has made appointments of several persons on the basis of the recommendations made by the Executive Council and all those persons who were appointed by the very same Executive Council are working since last about 3 to 4 years ad if we hold that the appointments of Dr. Sravanthy and Dr. Gowda are illegal for want of quorum that would seriously jeopardize the interest of all such appointments which were made by the Executive Council with the four members. We, therefore, observe that it would be open to the University, if they so desire and advised, and if the circumstances so demand, to place all such recommendations of the Selection Committee before the Executive Council afresh, duly constituted as per the provisions of Selection 18 of the Act, and seek approval and confirmation of their appointments with effect from the date on which they were appointed."

In the said circumstances, we are also convinced that the direction of the Division Bench does not call for interference.

However, we only wish to add that the said direction of the Division Bench should be carried out expeditiously preferably within two months in the interest of the institution and the student community. With the very same view, we also direct the status quo to be maintained pending the above said exercise is carried out by the University. We also direct the respondent University to carry out the exercise as directed by the Division Bench in the above said paragraph and conclude

the same within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

It is needless to state that the order is being passed respect of the candidates who are parties to these proceedings.

The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of on the above terms."

Therefore, as directed by the Division Bench of this Court,

the matter was placed before the Executive Council and the

Executive Council has passed an order of termination on

28.06.2016. The termination order was again challenged by

Ch.Sravanthi, the present appellant, who was one of the

selected candidates on the ground that the Executive Council

Meeting was bad in law for want of quorum. However, the

leaned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e.,

W.P.No.22385 of 2016 by an order dated 21.07.2016.

Thereafter, the writ appeal has been preferred.

During the pendency of the present writ appeal, as the

only ground raised in the matter was that the quorum of the

Executive Council was not complete, the University has again

held meeting of the Executive Council and this time the quorum

was complete. The Executive Council, in its 130th (Emergency)

meeting held on 15.11.2019, has again held to discontinue the

present appellant as well as other persons, meaning thereby not

to approve the selection. The appointment orders have also

been cancelled by the Executive Council. It is unfortunate that

even after cancellation of appointments by the Executive

Council, the University is continuing the present appellant and

other identically placed persons for the reasons best known to

the University. In the considered opinion of this Court, once

the lacuna pointed out by the present appellant in respect of

quorum has already been cured, no further orders are required

to be passed in the present writ appeal.

Resultantly, the writ appeal stands disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

28.03.2022 JSU