Dismissed

R.Vishnu Kumar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Feb 2023WP/4863/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting the petitioner's application for regularization of service. The petitioner failed to comply with special rules regarding age and engineering degree requirements for polytechnic lecturers.

What did the court decide?

Service regularization rejected due to lack of first-class engineering degree and age limit violation; Writ Petition dismissed.

R.Vishnu Kumar Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BL SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶2

W.P.No.4863 OF 2010

¶3

ORDER: ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)

¶4

The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order dated 02.11.2009 in O.A.No.3871/2006 passed by A.P.Administrative Tribunal dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as Lecturer in Electronics and Communication Engineering with all consequential benefits in the 3^rd respondent college.

¶5

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri B.Linga Rao and learned Government Pleader for Services.

¶6

3. As can be seen, earlier the petitioner filed O.A.No.6358/2002 making more or less a similar prayer to appoint the applicant in the post of lecturer with all consequential benefits. In the said O.A. the Tribunal passed an order dated 21-09-2005 permitting the petitioner

¶7

to avail the alternative remedy by filing an appeal before the 1^st respondent government. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal

¶8

¶9

and an order came to be passed vide proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.441 Higher Education (TE1/A2) Department dated 18.05.2006 and his request for regularization of service as lecturer was rejected on the main ground that the posts of lecturers in Polytechnics (earlier designated as Associate Lecturers) are under the purview of A.P.P.S.C. and as per the special rules for A.P.T.E.S. issued in G.O.Ms.No.178, HR. Edn., (TE1/A2) Dept., dated 09.12.2005 governing the posts of Lecturers in Polytechnics, for the appointment to the posts, one must possess a 1^st class Degree in Engineering in the appropriate subject and must not have completed the age of 35 years as on 01^st July of the year in which the notification for selection was issued. Whereas, the incumbent possesses only 2^nd class B.Tech., Degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering and he has also crossed 35 years of age and therefore he is not eligible for appointment to the post of lecturer in Polytechnics.

¶10

4. Aggrieved by the said proceedings in G.O.Rt.No. 441 dated 18.05.2006, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3871/2006. The Tribunal upon hearing both parties and having considered the contention of the Government that, the applicant has not fulfilled the special rules

¶11

¶12

issued in G.O.Ms.No. 178 Higher Education Department, dated 09.12.2005 governing the posts of lecturers in Polytechnics i.e., he has not possessed the 1^st class Degree in Engineering in the appropriate subject and that he already crossed age of 35 years as on 01^st July of the year in which notification for selection was issued, dismissed the O.A. Thus, as can be seen, the Tribunal held that the applicant has not fulfilled the special rules governing the posts of lecturers in Polytechnics i.e., he possessed only 2^nd class B.Tech., Degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering and further he has crossed 35 years of age and held that he was not eligible for appointment for the post of lecturer in Polytechnics.

¶13

5. We gave our anxious consideration. As can be seen from the impugned order, the petitioner has not fulfilled the special rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.178 Higher Education Department, dated 09.12.2005 governing the posts of Lecturers in Polytechnics. Admittedly, he did not possess 1^st class Degree in Engineering in the appropriate subject and further he was over aged by the relevant period. Neither in the Writ Petition nor in the arguments, the petitioner could substantiate as to how he can seek for regularization

¶14

¶15

of his service without fulfilling the conditions covered by the relevant

¶16

rules. Therefore, we find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶17

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

_________________________

¶19

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶20

__________________________

¶21

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J

02.02.2023

NNN

HON’BL SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND

¶26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶27

W.P.No.4863 OF 2010

¶28

02.02.2023

¶29

NNN

R.Vishnu Kumar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Vishnu Kumar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs M. Bala Krishna Murthy

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sk Nooruddin

Battula Jyothi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vinjam Srinivasa Rao Vs Union of India

Gurram Sujatha, Vs Authorised Officer SBI

Smt. Gurram Sujatha, Vs Authorised Officer