Dr. A Venkateswar Rao vs Dr. Vinatha Naini
2024 Latest Caselaw 3116 Tel

Telangana High Court

Dr. A Venkateswar Rao vs Dr. Vinatha Naini on 6 August, 2024

Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                        AND
 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

           WRIT APPEAL Nos.270, 279 AND 305 OF 2024


COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Since the issue involved in all these Writ Appeals is one and

the same, all these Writ Appeals are being disposed of by way of

this common judgment.

2. Aggrieved by the order, dated 24.08.2023, passed in

W.P.No.46785 of 2022 by a learned Single Judge of this Court,

the present Writ Appeals are filed by the appellants with the leave

of the Court, as they are not parties to the said Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, Sri M. Srikanth and

Sri S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the appellants,

Sri G. Vidyasagar and Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned Senior

Counsel, and Sri N.M. Shetty Akhil, learned counsel, representing

Sri Kotta Raghavendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Advocate General appearing for

respondent No.3 and Sri P. Bhanu Prakash, learned Standing

Counsel for Kakatiya University, appearing for respondent No.4-

Kakatiya University.

2 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts and the submissions

made in W.A.No.270 of 2024 are hereunder discussed.

5. It is the case of the appellants that they are all fully

qualified and eligible to be appointed as Assistant Professors. The

respondent-University has issued recruitment notification on

31.12.2009 inviting applications for filling up the posts of

Assistant Professors in various disciplines of the respondent-

University. The appellants have responded to the said notification

and after undergoing regular selection process, they were

selected and appointed as Assistant Professors in Chemistry,

Microbiology, Pharmacy, Mathematics, Computer Science etc.

While so, several complaints have been received by the State

Government with regard to selection of certain Assistant

Professors in certain disciplines.

6. Alleging that certain discrepancies and irregularities have

taken place while selecting Assistant Professors in Zoology

Department, W.P.Nos.12563, 15138 and 24732 of 2010 were filed

before this Court challenging the selections made to the post of

Assistant Professor in Zoology Department. Thereafter, the State

Government has constituted a two members committee vide 3 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

G.O.Rt.No.82, dated 11.02.2011, to enquire into the alleged

irregularities. The learned Single Judge of this Court, having

observed that there were several irregularities in the selections

made to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology Department,

was pleased to allow the said Writ Petitions vide common order,

dated 28.02.2011, and had set aside the selection and

appointment of Dr. Ch. Sravanthi and Dr. Gowda Rajender to the

post of Assistant Professor in Zoology Department. The

appointments of Dr. Ch. Sravanthi and Dr. Gowda Rajender were

set aside on two grounds i.e. the Executive Council, which has

approved the selections of the selected candidates, was not

having requisite quorum to approve the selections and that one of

the selected candidate's father was the Chairman of the Selection

Committee. Therefore, on the ground of bias and also for want of

requisite quorum while approving the selections, the selections of

Dr. Ch. Sravanthi and Dr. Gowda Rajender as Assistant Professors

in Zoology Department were set aside.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the candidates, whose selections

were set aside, including that of the respondent-University and

the petitioner in W.P.No.24732 of 2010, have filed W.A.Nos.233

to 235 of 2011 and W.A.Nos.1553 to 1555 of 2013 and Writ 4 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

Appeal Cross Objections (SR) No.112907 of 2011 before a

Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court was

pleased to dismiss the same vide common judgment, dated

19.03.2015.

8. The respondent-University had contended before the

Division Bench that the appointments made in respect of the

candidates selected in other disciplines, other than Zoology, may

not be disturbed on the ground that the Executive Council had no

requisite quorum to approve the selections and the said

contention was recorded at paragraph No.32 of the judgment,

dated 19.03.2015, and the Division Bench of this Court, at

paragraph No.43 of the said judgment, made it clear that the

selections of other candidates, who are selected as Assistant

Professors in other disciplines need not be set aside only on the

ground that the Executive Council did not have requisite quorum,

while approving the selections. However, liberty was given to the

respondent-University to place all the recommendations of the

Selection Committee before the Executive Council duly constituted

as per the provisions of Section 18 of The Telangana Universities

Act, 1991 (for short, 'the Act') afresh and seek approval and 5 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

confirmation of the appointments with effect from the date on

which they were appointed.

9. Aggrieved by the common judgment, dated 19.03.2015, the

matter was carried to the Honourable Supreme Court by filing

SLA(C) No.13827 of 2015 and batch and the Honourable Supreme

Court was pleased to dispose of the same by adding that the said

direction of the Division Bench should be carried out expeditiously

preferably within a period of two months in the interest of

institution and the student community and till such time, the

parties should maintain status quo. By virtue of the order passed

by the Honourable Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this

Court, the appellants are continuing in service.

10. It is the further case of appellants that the Honourable

Supreme Court had disposed of the said SLA(C) and batch with an

observation that the respondent-University should place the

matter before the Executive Council in terms of the observations

made by the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph No.43 of

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

batch. Pursuant to the same, the recommendations of the

Selection Committee were placed before the Executive Council 6 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

and the Executive Council has rejected the recommendations of

the Selection Committee vide proceedings, dated 15.11.2019.

11. It is further case of the appellants that as per second

proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act, whenever the Executive

Council rejects the approval of selected candidates, then the

matter has to be placed before the State Government for taking

necessary decision and the decision of the State Government

would be final. As the Executive Council has not approved the

selections made by the Selection Committee, the respondent-

University has placed the matter before the State Government

vide proceedings, dated 23.11.2019, in terms of second proviso

to Section 19(5) of the Act. The State Government has

constituted a Committee vide G.O.Rt.No.248, dated 17.12.2022,

in order to examine the grievance of such of those persons, who

were selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee,

however, not approved by the Executive Council.

12. It is further case of the appellants that the Committee so

constituted by the State Government was examining the cases of

the appellants and others and even before the said Committee

could take any decision, some of the candidates have approached

this Court challenging the said constitution of the Committee vide 7 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

G.O.Rt.No.248, dated 17.12.2022, by filing the subject

W.P.No.46785 of 2022, contending that the question of examining

the cases of Assistant Professors, whose appointments were not

approved by the Executive Council, by the State Government

would not arise when once the selections pertaining to the

notification, dated 31.12.2009, were set aside by a learned Single

Judge of this Court in W.P.No.12563 of 2010 and batch, dated

28.02.2011, which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this

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

also by the Honourable Supreme Court in SLA(C) No.13827 of

2015 and batch, dated 11.05.2015, and that one of the Members

of the Committee so constituted by the State Government vide

G.O.Rt.No.248, dated 17.12.2022, was the person who has

rejected the recommendations of the Selection Committee and

that person cannot be a Member in the Committee so constituted

by the State Government, in exercise of powers under second

proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act.

13. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned order,

dated 24.08.2023, was pleased to allow the Writ Petition by

setting aside G.O.Rt.No.248, dated 17.12.2022, by observing that

the respondent-University could not have referred the matter to 8 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

the State Government vide letter, dated 23.11.2019, and that the

State Government could not have constituted a Committee by

issuing G.O.Rt.No.248, dated 17.12.2022, when once the

Executive Council has already taken a decision not to approve the

selections made pursuant to the notification, dated 31.12.2009.

Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeals are filed.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the

appellants were the affected persons and they were not

impleaded as party respondents in the subject Writ Petition. The

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12563 of 2010 and batch has

adjudicated the issue in respect of appointment of Assistant

Professors in Zoology Department only. So, any observation

made by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid batch of Writ

Petitions, which was confirmed by the Division Bench and the

Honourable Supreme Court, has no impact on the cases of the

appellants.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended

that the Division Bench of this Court, at paragraph No.43 of the

judgment, dated 19.03.2015, has specifically observed that it is

open to the respondent-University to place the recommendations 9 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

of the Selection Committee before the Executive Council for its

approval. As admittedly, the Executive Council has not approved

the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the matter was

rightly referred by the respondent-University to the State

Government in terms of second proviso to Section 19(5) of the

Act and the State Government is the only authority, which has to

take a final call.

16. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended

that the appellants are not contending that their cases have to be

examined by the Committee constituted in terms of

G.O.Rt.No.248, dated 17.12.2022. The issue has to be looked

into by the State Government under second proviso to Section

19(5) of the Act. The learned Single Judge has mechanically set

aside the said G.O. issued in favour of the appellants, who were

not even parties before the learned Single Judge. Further, the

observations made by the learned Single Judge that the

respondent-University was not justified in referring the cases of

the appellants to the State Government in terms of second

proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act is not tenable. The

understanding of the learned Single Judge was that when once

the Executive Council has rejected the cases of the appellants, 10 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

then they do not have any remedy at all, but a perusal of second

proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act would make it clear that

whenever the Executive Council declines to grant approval of the

selection of the candidates, then the matter has to be referred to

the State Government in terms of second proviso to Section 19(5)

of the Act and the State Government must examine the case and

pass appropriate orders.

17. Admittedly, in the instant case, none of the appellants were

heard before passing the orders in W.P.No.12563 of 2010 and

batch, dated 28.02.2011 or in W.A.No.233 of 2011 and batch,

dated 19.03.2015. Further, a perusal of paragraph No.43 of the

judgment, dated 19.03.2015, of the Division Bench of this Court

makes it abundantly clear that the Division Bench gave liberty to

the respondent-University to place the recommendations of the

Selection Committee before the Executive Council afresh in

respect of other disciplines, where Assistant Professors are

recruited. Accordingly, the cases of the appellants were placed

before the Executive Council and the Executive Council has not

approved the selections of the appellants vide resolution, dated

15.11.2019. Therefore, the respondent-University was justified in

referring the cases of the appellants to the State Government in 11 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

accordance with second proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act and

the State Government was examining the cases of the appellants

and even before the State Government could take any decision in

terms of second proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act, the learned

Single Judge has allowed the subject Writ Petition.

18. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended

that the unofficial respondents (writ petitioners) were working as

Assistant Professors in other departments. Even if the selections

of the appellants were set aside, the unofficial respondents would

not get selected in the place where the appellants are working as

Assistant Professors. Therefore, looked from any angle, the

impugned order is liable to be set aside and the cases of the

appellants deserve to be considered by the State Government in

terms of second proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act. Therefore,

appropriate orders be passed to that effect and direct the State

Government to re-examine the cases of the appellants strictly in

accordance with second proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act and

also set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single

Judge, as the same is contrary to second proviso to Section 19(5)

of the Act.

12 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

19. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of their

submissions, had relied upon a judgment of the Honourable

Supreme Court in Girjesh Shrivastava and others v. State of

Madhya Pradesh and others 1, wherein the Honourable

Supreme Court has come to a conclusion that the persons, who

are affected, must be impleaded as party respondents and in the

absence of affected parties, no finding can be recorded by any

Court. Learned counsel further contended that moreover, the

proceedings were pending before the State Government for

ratification of the appointment of the appellants in terms of

second proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act. Therefore, the

learned Single Judge ought to have heard the affected persons.

In the absence of giving any opportunity to the appellants, the

order passed by the learned Single Judge is bad in law.

Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeals to

that effect.

20. Learned Advocate General appearing for respondent No.3

had contended that as the impugned order passed by the learned

Single Judge is contrary to second proviso to Section 19 (5) of the

Act, the State has filed a review petition in the subject Writ

(2010) 10 SCC 707 13 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

Petition and the same is pending consideration before the learned

Single Judge.

21. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-

University had contended that in terms of second proviso to

Section 19(5) of the Act, the respondent-University has rightly

placed the matter before the State Government vide proceedings,

dated 23.11.2019, and the State Government was examining the

cases of the appellants and even before the State Government

could take a decision, the unofficial respondents have approached

this Court by filing the subject Writ Petition and the learned Single

Judge of this Court, without properly appreciating the second

proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act, was pleased to allow the

subject Writ Petition vide impugned order, dated 24.08.2023, by

setting aside G.O.Rt.No.248, dated 17.12.2022, with an

observation that the respondent-University could not have

referred the matter to the State Government, as the Executive

Council has rejected the recommendations of the Selection

Committee. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed to that

effect.

14 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

22. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

unofficial respondents had contended that the learned Single

Judge has rightly set aside G.O.Rt.No.248, dated 17.12.2022.

When once the learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the

entire appointments made pursuant to the notification, dated

13.12.2009, in W.P.No.12563 of 2010 and batch, dated

28.02.2011, the question of referring the cases to the State

Government for ratification of the appointments would not arise.

The learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12563 of 2010 and batch,

dated 28.02.2011, has set aside the selections on two grounds

i.e. the Executive Council, which has approved the selections, did

not have requisite quorum and also on the ground of bias as one

of the selected candidate's father was Chairman of the Selection

Committee. The learned Single Judge had also set aside the

selection on the ground that the marks were allotted by the

members of the Selection Committee in an arbitrary fashion.

Therefore, the question of referring the cases of the candidates,

who were selected pursuant to the notification, dated 31.12.2009,

to the State Government for ratification would not arise.

23. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting

respondents had further contended that the learned Single Judge 15 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

in W.P.No.12563 of 2010 and batch, dated 28.02.2011, has set

aside the selections in respect of Assistant Professors in Zoology

Department on the ground that they are in violation of Ordinance-

II of the respondent-University. A perusal of Ordinance-II of the

respondent-University makes it clear that the marks allotted to

the selected candidates have to be assessed by the members of

the Selection Committee with lot of clarity. In the instant case,

there is no such clarity and exorbitant marks were allotted to the

selected candidates and marks were denied to the candidates,

who are meritorious. When once the selections are set aside in

its entirety, the question of referring the same to the Executive

Council and to the State Government for ratification of the

appointments would not arise.

24. Sri N.M. Shetty Akhil, learned counsel for the unofficial

respondents, had relied upon a judgment of the Honourable

Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Raghuwar

Pal Singh 2 and contended that when once the selections are held

to be arbitrary and illegal, the question of extending principles of

natural justice to some of the selected candidates would not arise.

Learned counsel further contended that admittedly, in the instant

(2018) 15 SCC 463 16 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

case, the appellants are selected pursuant to the notification,

dated 31.12.2009, and once the selections are set aside by the

learned Single Judge, which was confirmed by the Division Bench

and also the Honourable Supreme Court, the question of

reconsidering the cases of the appellants by the State

Government would not arise.

25. Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents

had further relied upon a judgment of the Honourable Supreme

Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ajay

Kumar Das and others 3, wherein the Honourable Supreme

Court has held that when once the termination order is set aside,

the question of extending principles of natural justice thereafter

would not arise. The learned counsel further contended that

admittedly, in the instant case, the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.12563 of 2010, dated 28.02.2011, has set aside the

selections on the ground that the selections were approved by the

Executive Council, which do not have requisite quorum. The

same principle applies to the appellants also. Therefore, the

question of once again examining the cases of the appellants by

the State Government would not arise.

(2002) 4 SCC 503 17 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

26. Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents

had further relied upon a judgment of the Honourable Supreme

Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. K.

Brahmanandam and others 4, wherein the Honourable Supreme

Court has held that once the appointment orders of candidates

are set aside on the ground that they are in violation of the

mandatory provisions of the statute, the question of examining

their cases by the State Government for their ratification would

not arise. Learned counsel further contended that admittedly, in

the instant case, the appointments of the appellants were set

aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court, as referred to

supra, on the ground that the Executive Council, which has

approved the selections of the appellants, is not having requisite

quorum. Therefore, the question of once again examining the

appointments by the State Government for ratification would not

arise. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in

allowing the subject Writ Petition in favour of the unofficial

respondents. Hence, there are no merits in the Writ Appeals and

the same are liable to be dismissed.

(2008) 5 SCC 241 18 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

27. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that

the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.12563 of 2010

and batch, dated 28.02.2011, was dealing with selections made

to Assistant Professors in Zoology Department of the respondent-

University. Whereas, all the appellants are working as Assistant

Professors in various other disciplines other than Zoology

Department. The appointments made in Zoology Department

were alone dealt with in the said batch of Writ Petitions and the

appointments made in Zoology Department to the post of

Assistant Professor alone were set aside and the matter was

carried in the form of Writ Appeal No.233 of 2011 and batch and

a specific pleading was raised by the learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the respondent-University before the Division Bench

that the appointments in respect of other disciplines may not be

set aside on the ground that the Executive Council did not have

requisite quorum for approving the selections pursuant to the

notification, dated 31.12.2009, and liberty was sought to place

the recommendations of the Selection Committee before the

Executive Council for fresh approval and to that effect, the 19 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

Division Bench of this Court in paragraph No.43 of the common

judgment, dated 19.03.2015, has observed as under:

"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 and 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 its 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 Section 18 of the Act, and seek approval and confirmation of their appointments with effect from the date on which they were appointed."

Thereafter, the matter was further carried to the Honourable

Supreme Court by filing S.L.A.(C).No.13827 of 2015 and batch

and the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to dispose of the

same vide order, dated 11.05.2015, with the following

observations:

"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

20 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

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 in respect of the candidates who are parties to these proceedings."

28. Even a perusal of paragraph No.43 of the common

judgment, dated 19.03.2015, and also the observations made by

the Honourable Supreme Court referred to supra makes it clear

that liberty was given to the respondent-University to place the

recommendations of the Selection Committee before the

Executive Council for fresh approval. Therefore, the Executive

Council has examined the cases of the selected candidates, who

were appointed in other disciplines like that of the appellants and

the Executive Council has rejected their cases vide proceedings,

dated 15.11.2019.

29. Here it is apt to refer Section 19(5) of the Act, which reads

as under:

"19. The Executive Council shall be the Executive Authority of the University and shall have power, -

                                                21                                 AKS,J & LNA,J
                                                                      W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch



      (1)      xxx
      (2)      xxx
      (3)      xxx
      (4)      xxx
      (5)      Subject to such statutes as may be prescribed in this
      behalf,-
              (i)         to appoint the teachers of the University below
             the rank of Assistant Professors;
              (ii)        to appoint the teachers of the University and
             above        the    rank    of    Assistant    Professors       on    the
             recommendations             of      the      Selection      Committee
             constituted for the purpose:

Provided that the Executive Council may invite any person of high academic distinction and professional attainments to accept a post of Professor in the University and appoint him to that post:

Provided further that if the Executive Council rejects the selections made by the Selection Committee, the matter shall be referred by the University to the State Government whose decision thereon shall be final;

(iii) to fix emoluments of the teachers of the University and define their duties and conditions of service;"

30. A perusal of second proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act

makes it clear that whenever the Executive Council rejects the

selections made by the Selection Committee, then the

respondent-University must invariably refer the matter to the 22 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

State Government for reconsideration and the decision of the

State Government would be final. Accordingly, the respondent-

University has referred the matter to the State Government vide

proceedings, dated 23.11.2019, and the State Government vide

G.O.Rt.No.248, dated 17.12.2022, constituted a committee to

take a decision on the resolution of the Executive Council. Even

before a decision is taken by the State Government, the learned

Single Judge has set aside G.O.Rt.No.248, dated 17.12.2022, with

an observation that the question of respondent-University

referring the matter to the State Government would not arise,

when once the Executive Council has not approved the selections

of the selected candidates vide proceedings, dated 15.11.2019.

Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting

aside G.O.Rt.No.248, dated 17.12.2022, with an observation that

the respondent-University could not have referred the matter to

the State Government.

31. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the

State Government should constitute a Committee and examine

the cases of the appellants, as the State Government has got

power under second proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act to take a

final call on the selections made by the respondent-University.

23 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

Therefore, in exercise of the said powers, the State Government

shall examine the matter, be it in the form of a Committee or

some other means and consider the cases of the candidates and

pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As admittedly,

the appellants, whose appointments were to be considered by the

State Government, were not heard and their cases were

adjudicated by the learned Single Judge, without impleading them

as party respondents, the impugned order, dated 24.08.2023,

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.46785 of 2022 is

liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside.

32. In view of the above, the State Government shall consider

the cases of all the appellants and other selected candidates,

whose appointments were not approved by the respondent-

University, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law,

after giving them an opportunity. The above exercise shall be

completed by the State Government as expeditiously as possible,

preferably, within a period of six (6) months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is needless to state that till

the State Government takes a decision, the respondent-University

shall continue the services of all the candidates, who were 24 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.270 of 2024 & batch

selected pursuant to the notification, dated 31.12.2009, except

the Assistant Professors in Zoology Department.

33. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Appeals

are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in these Writ

Appeals, shall stand closed.

_________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

__________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 06.08.2024.

MD