This is a writ appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that prospectively declared a bar on the petitioner's candidature for a post illegal. The bench upheld the lower court's decision, upholding the relief but leaving the recent appointment of another candidate untouched.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
\ ■
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
&
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W. ANO: 151 OF 2024
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dated 22-01-2024 passed in W.P.No. 28669 of 2023 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
Dr. P. Ravi Kumar, S/o. P. Satyam Aged 59 years, Occ- Professor of Vety. Pharmacology NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram Krishna Dist., Andhra Pradesh - 521 102.
...APPELLANT
AND
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue orders of promotion/appointme nt to the post of Associate Dean in favour of the petitioner in NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram, Krishna District by suspending the operation of Proc. No.
350054/Ser.l/2 021 dated 30-10-2023 issued by the I'^t Respondent, pending disposal of the above writ appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant:SRI. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: SRI.KOTHA RAMA MOHAN RAO(SC FOR SVVUT)
Counsel for the Respondent No.4:
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON^BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.A. No. 151 of 2024
JUDGMENT; - (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar)
the following prayer:
“It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleasedto issue a writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the Memo No.ll576/Ser. 1/2008 dated 09-12-2019 of the 1st respondent wherein informed the petitioner that hewill not be considered in future for the post of AssociateDean in any constituent Colleges of the University and appointing the 4th respondent as Associate Dean ofNTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram ignoringthe case of petitioner though he is senior than the 4th respondent in the cadre of Professor vide Proc. No.350054/Ser1/2021 dated 30-10-2023 of the 1st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, violative of amended Rule 28 of AP Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 issued vide GOMs.No.92 (GAD) dated 28-082023 apart from being violative of law declared bythis
2
Honble Court in MVRLS Ravikanth vs State of Andhra Pradesh ((2017) 06 AP CK 0001) G.Boyanna Vs. Registrar (Admn.) High Court of AP & Anr. (2009(2)ALD 402 (DB)} and The District Educational Officer, Kumool& Ors us. Shahnaz Begum (WP No. 26654 of 2005) and consequently set aside the same by directing the Respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion/appointment to the post of Associate Deanin NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram or in any other constituent colleges in the existing <or in future vacancy as per his Seniority and pass such other orderor orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and properin the circumstances of the case. ”
granting the following reliefs
in) This Court is not inclined to interfere with the appointment of the Unofficial Respondent No. 4 vide
3
Proceedings bearing Proc.No.350054/Ser.I/2021, dated 30.10.2023 (Ex.P.1) and,
iv) The Writ Petitioner is entitled for being appointed as Associate Dean or similar post in the future in any of the I constituent Colleges under Respondent No. 1. ”
- On a reading of the reliefs granted, it is apparentthat the learned Single Judge has been pleased to granttherelief prospectively and the reasons are not far to seek.
4
The order of revocation, dated 20.09.2018, is also communicated to the Petitioner and the same reads as
under:-
“In the re.f3rd cited, Dr. P. Ravi Kumar, Professor (VPT) & Principal has informed that, in view of his wife’s health status, he is unable to accept the responsibility of Associate Dean, CVSc, Proddatur at this point of time. (Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, on considering upon the representation made by him, the orders issued vide re.f 2nd cited, appointing Dr.P.Ravi Kumar, Principal, AH Polytechnic, VR Gudem are hereby cancelled.
J. U. RAMANA
REGISTRAR i/c”.
“In the re.f4th cited, orders issued to Dr.P.Ravi Kumar, Principal, AHP, VR Gudem appointing him as Associate Dean, CVSc, Proddatur were cancelled as per the representation made by him vide ref 3rd cited.
N
5
/' ■
Dr.P.Ravi Kumar, Principal, AHP, VR Gudem is informed that the reasons submitted by him for not accepting the assignment of Associate Dean, College of Veterinary Science, Proddatur are not valid.
Therefore, Dr.P.Ravi Kumar is informed that he will not be considered in future for similar post in any constituent college of the University.
D. SRINIVASA RAO
REGISTRAR”
- The Petitioner does not deny the receipt of the proceedings bearing Memo No. 11576/Ser.I/2008, dated 09.12.2019, nor,is it the case of the Petitioner, thathe was unaware of its implications. That being the case, thelackof diligence and the delay in challenging the legalityofthesame has been put against the Petitioner by the learned Single Judge, while granting the relief prospectively.
6
short reason that the amended guidelines, dated 21.09.2017, does not automatically nor permanently disqualify any candidate who declines the offer of the University to the tenure post. Even under the amended guidelines, a candidate is said to permanently lose his eligibility, only if he declines the post offered to him without there being any valid or genuine reason. Indisputably, the offer by the University was declined by the Petitioner in 2018 on certain grounds, which can neither be stated as not valid nor not genuine.
7
I
keeping in consideration the delay in approaching the Court, the learned Single Judge has appropriately and rightly negated the ch^lenge to the appointment of the private Respondent, but proceeding further the learned Single Judge has directed that the Petitioner shall be in the race in future : appointment.
Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY R^ISTRAR
//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
To,
5 One CC to SRI. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Advocate [OPUC]
f
/
HIGH COURT
DATED: 15/02/2024
ORDER
WA.No.151 of 2024
DISPOSING OFTHE WP WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's prospective order in a writ petition regarding a bar on future consideration for a post.
Whether the appellant's delay in approaching the court justifies maintaining a prospective relief rather than immediate appointment.
Whether the Single Judge correctly balanced equities by keeping the appellant eligible for future consideration despite the respondent's past bar order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
MVRLS Ravikanth vs State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶35
MVRLS Ravikanth vs State of Andhra Pradesh ((2017) 06 AP CK 0001)
G.Boyanna Vs. RegistrarReferred¶35
G.Boyanna Vs. Registrar (Admn.) High Court of AP & Anr. (2009(2)ALD 402 (DB))
The District Educational Officer, Kumool & Ors vs Shahnaz BegumReferred¶35
The District Educational Officer, Kumool & Ors us. Shahnaz Begum (WP No. 26654 of 2005)
Dr. P. Ravi Kumar
Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University
The Dean, Veterinary Faculty
The Dean, Dairy Faculty
Dr. P.V.S. Kishore
G.NARENDAR
NYAPATHY VIJAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
