TTD filled Librarian and Graduate Librarian posts by recruitment-by-transfer under a government order, after discontinuing contract librarians selected through public notification. The Division Bench held appointments contrary to the prescribed mode of recruitment, found no justification for Rule 31 relaxation, and upheld quashing of the G.O.
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.
' J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 556. 590. 591 OF 2021 AND 777 OF 2022 AND 1169 OF 2023
WRIT APPEAL NO: 556 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dated 15-02-2021 made in W.P. No. 467 of 2020 on the file of the High Court.
Between;
10.D. Sudha Rani, D/o Shanmugham, Aged 42 years. Librarian (Graduate), SPW Degree College, Tirupati - 517501, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
11.G. Supriya, W/o S. Venkata Muni Kumar, Aged 40 years. Librarian, SPW Degree College, Tirupathi - 517501, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
--I't
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Learned Single Judge's Order dated 15-02-2021 to the extent of setting aside G.O.RT.No. 1411 Revenue (Endts. Ill) Dept., dated 28- 11-2019.
Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI. A PRABHAKAR SARMA SC FOR TTD Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5 : SRI P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : GP FOR GAD Counsel for the Respondents 8 to 13 : SRI G R SUDHAKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO: 590 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dated 15.02.2021 in W.P.No.467 of 2020 and W.P.No. 14658 of 2020 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
^3-
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with of filing certified copy of the impugnedcommonorderdated15-02- 2021 in WP No. 467 of 2020 and W.P. No. 14658 of 2020.
lA NO: 2 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order dated 15.02.2021 in W.P. No. 467 of 2020 and W.P.No.14658 of 2020 to the extent of setting aside G.O.Rt.No.1411 Revenue (Endowments.Ill) Department, dated 28.11.2019. Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI. G R SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5 : SRI P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI PRABHAKARA SARMA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 591 OF 2021
Between:
...Appellants
AND
16.Peta Pramila, W/o P.R. Narasimha Reddy, Aged 49 years, Occ- Librarian (Graduate), S.P. Girls High School, Tirupati - 517501, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of impugned order of the Learned Single Judge dated 15-02-2021 passed in WP.No. 467 of 2020 receive the Xerox copy of the same.
lA NO: 2 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to leave to the petitioners/appellants herein to file Writ Appeal against the Order of the Learned Single Judge dated 15-02-2021 in WP.No.467of2020.
lA NO: 3 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned show Cause Notice issued to the petitioners/appellants by the TTD dated 04-09-2021.
lA NO: 4 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order of the Learned Single Judge dated 15-02-2021 passed in WP.No.467 of 2020 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5: SRI P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI PRABHAKARA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : GP FOR GAD
WRIT APPEAL NO: 777 OF 2022
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dt. 15-2-2021 in W.P.No.14658 of 2020, on the file of the High Court.
Between:
Dr N Kalpalatha, D/o N. Balasubrahmanyam, Aged 46 Yrs, Working as Librarian on contract Basis in SPW Degree and PG College, TTD, Tirupathi, R/o Flat No. 301, Vishnu Towers, Rayal Nagar, Tirupathi - 516502, ChittorDistrict
...Appellant/Writ Petitioner
...Respondents/ Respondents
lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, theHighCourtmaybepleasedto direct the respondents to regularise / absorb the petitionerasLibrarian in the 5th respondent college or any other existing vacancies.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, theHighCourtmaybepleasedto receive additional document and the same may be takenonrecordinWANo.777 of 2022.
Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI. SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Counsel for the Respondents : SRI P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents 1 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondents 2 : GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 5 : SRI A SUMANTH,SCFORTTD Counsel for the Respondents 6 : NONE APPEARED
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1169 OF 2023
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent referredagainsttheorder in W.P No. 467 of 2020 dated 15.02.2021, on the file of the High Court.
Between:
...Appellants/Petitioners
^1-
15.D. Pushpalatha, D/o D. Muthyalaiah Aged 53 years,Occ.AttenderR/o Nallagaripalli Village, Kotala Post Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District, AP
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1002 in filing the Writ Appeal against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 15.02.2021 in WP No.467 of 2020 insofar as it relates to declining the relief sought by the Appellants/ Petitioners for regularisation of their services.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent forthwith to consider the case of the Appellants/ Petitioners as Librarian and further direct the Respondents to allowing the Appellants / Petitioners to continue in service on contract basis in the existing vacancies and which post the Appellants/ Petitioners were holding till the end of May, 2020, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents 3 : GP FOR GAD Counsel for the Respondents 2, 4 to 9 : SRI A SUMANTH, SC FOR TTD The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.556, 590. 591 OF 2021 & 777 of 2022 and 1169 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT: (yer Hon ’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar)
- Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Sarma, learned counsel appearingonbehalfof the appellant-T.T.D board (Lead Appeal), Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants (Companion Appeal), that is, those who have been displaced on account of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and it is pertinent to record at this stage itself that they were all employees of the T.T.D. board in various other cadres and departmentsoftheT.T.D.before being appointed as Librarians/Graduate Librarians and Sri P.V. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the Appellants/Petitioners (Connected Appeal), that is the Petitioners. The appeals are referred to as the lead appeal, companion appeal and the connected appeal, for the sake of brevity andconvenience.
- The facts are not in dispute. The G.O.Rt.No.l411, Revenue (ENDTS.III) Department, dated 28.11.2019, that was quashed by the learned single judge, was issued by the State Government, pursuant to a requestandattheinstance of the lead - appellant i.e. the T.T.D. Board [in short ‘the Board’]. The Government order was requested and issued to enable Board to fill up the vacancies in the post of Librarian (06) and Graduate Librarian (06) by way of
2
direct recruitment by transfer i.e., by 'ay of making appointments from amongst staff of the T.T.D. board, who allegedly possessed the requisite academic qualifications stipulated under the recruitmentRules.
- The paragraphs Nos. 2 & 3 of the Government Order,readasunder:
“2. The Executive Ofifcer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams has requested the Government to consider filling up of 6 Librarian and 6 Graduate Librarian posts under recruitment by transfer in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams educational institutions as one-time measure for the academic year 2019-2020 instead of filling them up through the promotion channel.
(Emphasis by this Court).
- The Learned Counsel for the appellants in the Companion Appeal submits that, pursuant to the aforesaid G.O., the appellants therein, preferred their applications. That the same were considered and orders of appointment came to be issued. It is also pertinent to note that the same was preceded by removal, rather non-extension of the contracts executed by the Board in favour of the appellants in the Connected Appeal. It is also pertinent to note at this stage itself, that these so called “contract employees”, appointed to the posts of
3
Librarian/Graduate Librarians, were so appointed, after they were made to go through the rigor of the selection process which was preceded by a public notification inviting applications. The notification inviting applications from the qualified public was issued on date 10.07.2007. The pleaded facts, disclose that the incumbents, who were subjected to and made to undergo the rigor of the selection process, were fully qualified in all respects, to be appointed to the post of Librarian/Graduate Librarian.
- The learned Single Judge taking note of the Cadre andRecruitmentRules (C & R Rules) and also after placing reliance on theC«feRRulesi.e.framed by the Board in respect of the post of Librarian andGraduateLibrarianand after appreciating the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and after examiningthe sameindetail,has been pleased to reject the prayer of the then incumbents, that is, the appellants in the Connected Appeal, i.e., prayers of the contract employees, praying for regularization of their service. While so, rejecting the prayer for regularization. the Court proceeded further and was also pleased to quash the G.O. dated 28.11.2019, pursuant to and under which, the appellants in the Companion Appeal came to be appointed.
- The learned Counsels for the appellants in the lead appeal and the companion appeal, would in unison, vociferously and vehemently contend that
the order of the learned single judge quashing the G.O. is highly is erroneous and unsustainable.
- We have pointedly queried the learned counsel for the lead appellants, as to why the services of the then incumbents were discontinued when there were none to discharge duties, to which the learned counsel has no answer. We have also queried the learned counsel as to why a regular selection process, in terms of the cadre «fe recruitment rules, could not have been commenced and
5
applications invited for the posts available, duringthetime the contractual employees were discharging duties, to which also wefindnoanswer.
- Per contra, learned counsel in the companion appeals Sri J. Sudheer, would vehemently contend that the learned Single Judge seriously erred in appreciating the Writ Petition and setting aside the G.O. itself. He would contend that the petitioners stood denuded of any locus standi. when the learned Single Judge held that they were notentitledforthereliefof regularization. Elaborating further he would contendthatfurtherconsideration of the Writ Petition for declaring the G.O. was arbitrary and illegal and virtually renders it as a P.I.L, which jurisdictionwasnotvestedinthelearned single judge and hence the order impugned to that extentaloneisunsustainable and is required to be interfered with and set-aside.
- Learned counsel would also submit that the question of holding the action as mala fide is unsustainable in view of the fact that there are no supportive pleadings and on that ground also the impugned orderinsofar it holds the G.Q. as bad warrants interference. That the Learned Single Judge also erred in
6
holding that the impugned action and the G.O. stood vitiated on account of mala fides too. He would also submit that the later part of the order holding the G.O as bad is erroneous as the petition was rendered academic in view of the fact that the Court below had rejected the prayer of the petitioners to regularize their services and they not being aspirants, the Learned Single Judge ought not to have proceeded further.
- The Learned counsel in the Connected Appeals, wouldcanvassthatthe order is erroneous as the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the factual aspects of the case in the background of the law settled by the constitutional Bench in Uma Devi’s case, and more particularly the fact that the petitioners were selected after being made to undergo the complete process of selection and that the employer, only while issuing the order of appointment, made it a contractual one.
consideration is;
7
- Having heard the learned counsels and having perussed the material papers and having given our anxious consideration tothevariouscontentions canvassed and the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no ground that warrants interference withthewellconsideredorderof the learned Single Judge. All the points are taken up together for consideration, as they are inter-linked.
- Learned Single Judge has examined the Rules, the prescribed qualification and the criteria for and the method of appointment to the post of Librarian and Graduate Librarian. The post of Librarian is the lower and feeder cadre and the post of Graduate Librarian is a promotional cadre. The prescribed qualifications for the post of LibrarianandGraduateLibrarianareas under:
| 01. | Librarian | By Direct Recruitment | i. Must possess a post graduate degree in I or II class from a recognized university and a degree of B.L.Sc, or equivalent degree thereto. |
|---|---|---|---|
| ii. Must possess a fair knowledge of Sanskrit. |
|||
| By Promotion | By promotion from Librarian (graduate) |
||
| i. Must possess a fair knowledge in Sanskrit ii. Must have not less than 5 years ofserviceasGraduateLibrarian. |
8
9
the Graduate Librarian posts are said to be filled up by direct recruitment, by way of transfer. It is not in dispute that the proposed amendment, is yet to receive the assent nor have the rules been amended in a manner known to law. If that be the admitted case, the settled positioninlawisthatnorecruitment can be made contrary to the rules framed by the appointing authority. The issue is no more res-integra. A division Bench of Karnataka High Court headed by his lordship R.V. Ravi Chandran in the case of SriM.V.DixitandothersVs. State of Karnataka and others^ wherein paragraph nos.22and23readsas
under;
“22. After the coming into force of the Civil ServicesAct,creation and abolition ofposts (i.e. specifying different categories of posts in different branches of Public Service, specifyingthetotalnumber ofposts and nature ofposts in each category and the scales ofpay admissible to each category) can only be by way ofRulesmadein the manner prescribed in Section 3(2) of the said Act and not by any executive order issued under Article 162 of theConstitution. The field of Regulation of creation and abolition ofposts, method of recruitment and conditions of service is now occupied by an enactment of State Legislature. Therefore, exercise of the power in regard to regulation of the matters falling in the occupiedfield can only be in accordance with the said Act and not otherwise by an executive order.
23.It is contended by the promotees/Transferees belonging to Public Works/Irrigation Department that Section 3(1) merely provides that the State Government nay, by notification,makerules relating to recruitment and conditions of service, and specify the different categories of posts, number of posts, nature ofposts and scale of pay; and that Section 3(1) is only an enabling provision permitting the State to make Rules in the manner stipulatedand until Rules are made under 3(1), the executive powerisnottaken away in regard to matters specified in Section 3(1).Itissubmitted
^ ILR 2004 KAR 3802
10
that as no Rule as contemplated in Section 3(1) hasbeenmade prescribing the cadre strength of the Accounts Superintendents or their number and nature of posts in each category in respect of Public Works or Irrigation Department, the executive power of State to create or abolition of posts is not taken away; and as a consequence, the State can by executive order, bifurcate any cadre or create a cadre by reducing the strength ofan existingcadreand at the same time, create new cadre consisting of the downgraded posts. A combined reading of Article 162 of the Constitutionand Section 3 of the Civil Sei^ices Act, shows that the said contention is not tenable. As noticed above, executive power in regardto a subject comes to an end when a law is made in regardtosuch subject by the State Legislature and such law occupies the field. Prior to the enactment of Karnataka State Civil Services Act, the recruitment and conditions of services were not regulated by any law made by the Legislature. In those circumstances, the manner of recruitment and the minimum qualiifcations therefor were regulated by Rules made under Article 309; and the creation and abolition of posts with prescription of cadre strength and pay scales were regulated by executive orders under Article162.Once the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978 enacted and came into force on 4.3.1992, the field relating to recruitmentandconditions of service (including creation of abolition of posts, ifxing the number and nature ofposts) beca.me a field occupied by law made by the State Legislature. The law is made in regardto'recruitment' in a wider sense which includes not only the method of Recruitment, but also creation and abolition ofposts by specifying different categories of posts in different branches ofpublic service specifying total number ofposts, nature of such posts and scales of pay admissible to such posts. As the field relatingtocreationand abolition of posts is occupied by an enactment of the State Legislature, regulating the entire field of recruitment,theState can abolish or create posts only by making rules as contemplatedin Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services Act and not by an executive order under Article 162. We are therefore of the view that the cadre strength of Accounts Superintendents in public works and Irritation departments could not have been altered by government by issuing an executive order under Article 162 on 05.12.2001. ”
- The law settled by the Division Bench, in our considered opinion, squarely applies to the facts of the instant case. The rule having prescribed the
11
manner of appointment to the post of Librarian by wayofDirectRecruitment and by way of Promotion only, the action of the respondents in attempting to fill up the posts by wav of “transfer” or in other words, by way of direct recruitment by way of Transfer is impermissible & illegal being contrary to “Mode” of appointment prescribed under the statute.
- The reliance on Rule 31 in our considered opinion is an afterthought and the neither the Lead appellants nor the Companion appellants, have demonstrated compliance with even a single pre-condition stipulated under Rule 31. It is not that Rule 31 can be invoked at the drop of a hat. Invocation of Rule 31 is permissible only in certain specificcircumstancesandinthecase on hand there is no demonstration of fact that the conditions obtaining at the relevant point of time justify invocation of Rule 31.Rule31readsasunder:
12
“Rule 31:- Notwithstanding anything contained in theserules or in the special rules, the Governor shall have the power to relax any rules contained in these rules or special rules, in favour of any person or class of persons, in relationtotheir application to any member of a service or to any persontobe appointed to the service, class or category or a personora class ofpersons, who have served in any civil capacityinthe Government of Andhra Pradesh in such manner as may appear to be just and equitable to him, where such relaxation is considered necessary in the public interest or wherethe application of such rule or rules is likely to causeundue hardship to the person or class ofpersons concerned. ”
- In fact, the so called hardship, which is now pleaded, is a post facto one, and is a making of their own and we state so in view of the following. The employer having conducted a selection process and the Appellants in the Connected Appeals, having emerged as the most meritorious and having been selected solely on the basis of their merits and they having been on the pay rolls since 2007, though as contractual employees, there was absolutely no dearth of working hands to discharge the duties of the Librarian or Graduate Librarians. The Lead Appellant in order to create an artificial necessity, the contracts of the librarians/graduate librarians in employment were discontinued, vacancies were artificially created andthereaftertheinstantG.O.
13
came to be issued. These are facts that are borne out by the records and the pleadings. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that, an attempt was made to issue a public notification, invite applicationsandconductselections to the post on the basis of “Assessed Merit”, but on the other hand an attempt is made to justify selections on the basis of “available talent”. It is not a case of there being a dearth of meritorious candidates but the selection is a result of a “tunnel vision” approach adopted by the Lead Appellant.
14
- With regard to the allegation of mala fides, it is the law that the allegations of mala fide should be supported by appropriate pleadings but in the case on hand, it is seen that the illegality is borne out by the record placed before the Court. All the facts are borne out by therecords &admitted pleadings of the Lead & Companion Appellants, leading to the learned Single Judge rendering a finding that the appointments are vitiated by mala fides and consequently illegal. The other startling fact is that the number of posts for which the requests were made, the number of posts sanctioned under the G.O. and the number of appointments made by the Lead Appellantareoneandthe same. Nothing is pointed out nor any material placed to show, that this opportunity of appointment of recruitment by transfer, was even publicized much less widely publicized even the amongst staff of the lead appellant.
- There is also not a whisper as to how the appellants in the companion appeals i.e., the beneficiaries of the scheme, came to know about the G.O., and as to when they were called upon to make applications or as to when they made
15
their applications or as to whether any selection process was undergone by them, whether any written examination or interviews were conducted, etc,. Nothing is forthcoming either from the pleadings or the record. Thus, this very fact alone by itself speaks volumes and indicates that the appointees / beneficiaries were pre-determined. It is not the case of the lead appellants that apart from the appellants in the companion appeals,therearenootherswho possessed the qualifications as prescribed under theRules. In contrast the appellants in the connected appeals, were not only appointed to the very posts but were appointed to the said posts after going throughavalid selection process. They were on the rolls of the Lead Appellants / TTD and in fact they were discharging duties in the said posts itself, when they were unceremoniously removed.
16
their duties which would imply that they were moreconversantwiththework they were required to discharge than the appellants in the Companion Appeals.
- Any prudent person would have in fact seen an advantage in the persons who are currently holding the post rather than in personswhohadlosttouch with the subject itself No perceivable advantage is pointed out. No perceivable hardship is pointed out. No grave situation is pointed out justifying the recourse to this arbitrary manner of appointment. The inferences drawn by the learned Single Judge are supported by the records and pleadings. In that view also, we see justification for the adverse inference drawn by the learned Single Judge. But the only face saver is that the Government had given its nod to this unsustainable action which in our considered opinion is tantamount to a colourable exercise of power. The exercise carried out by the appointing authority in our opinion is a classic case of misfeasance. There is no doubt that the appointing authority was empowered to make appointments to the posts, but taking advantage of the said authority and the said power vested in them, it is not open to the appointing authority to exercise their power in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The appointing authority was well aware of the limitations in law and was well aware of the procedure prescribed and despite such prescription has proceeded to resort to such appointments by such an arbitrary fashion and now seek to justify the same under the cloak of relaxation of the
17
Rules. In view of the above discussion, we have nohesitationtoconcludethat no grounds are made out justifying the invocation ofRule31.
writ petition.
- Had the appointing authority resorted to appointment in compliance with the rules, that is, by issuing a public advertisement inviting applications and kept it open to all qualified personnel, it would have given the appellants in the Connected Appeals also an opportunity to participate in the selection process. Having not done so and having sought to justify the appointments under the cover of the G.O., the petitioners were fully justified in their prayer and we are of the opinion that the writ petitions mounting a challenge to the G.O.is fully maintainable.
- The other limb of challenge by the appellants that they were not heard by the learned Single Judge cannot be appreciated. Inviewofthefactthatthe
18
appointing authority was heard and in fact some of the appointees were also arrayed as party respondents. Be that as it may, the legality of the appointment was required to be canvassed by the appointing authority. The appointing authority and the Governmenthave been heard in detail. The objections have been filed and after taking note of this, we do not deem it a ground good enough which would warrant interference with the order impugned. It was always open for the aggrieved persons to have moved the learned Single Judge for review of the order.
- Be that as it may, they have also been heard at length by this court and the grounds canvassed have been addressed by this court on merits. In the totality of our discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge holding the G.O. as vitiated and bad in law does not warrant interference. Consequently, the appointments made pursuant to the G.O. being in the teeth of settled law and the law settled by the constitutional bench in the case of V.B. Badami and others Vs. State ofMysore and other^ prohibiting the violation of the quota rule, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge is wholly justified.
- The issues are answered against the appellants. Consequently, all the appeals stand rejected. The rejection of the appeals shall not come in the way.
1976 2 see 901
19
I
in the event the appellants deem it necessary or they are so advised to prefer a review before the learned Single Judge. The Board will be well advised to initiate the selection process at the earliest rather it would be beneficial if it forthwith set in motion the procedure for filling up the posts of Librarian and Graduate Librarian that are presently lying vacant. We are of the opinion that the process should not consume much time in view ofthefactthatthe number of candidates/students who pursue a course in libraryscienceandthenumber of colleges offering courses in library science are not great in number. Hence, the appointing authority shall forthwith initiate steps to have the vacancies filled up in a manner known to law.
- As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/P. VENKATA RAMANA JOIN^EGI^R AR SE Cr/ofToFFICER
One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR (For His Lordship’s kind perusal)
One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY (For His Lordship’s kind perusal)
- One CC to Sri A Prabhakar Sarma, SC for TTD [OPUCl
- One CC to Sri P V Krishnaiah. Advocate [OPUCl
- One CC to Sri G R Sudhakar, Advocate [OPUC]
- One CC to Sri J Sudheer, Advocate [OPUC]
- One CC to Sri Madhiraju Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUCl
- One CC to Sri A Sumanth, SC for TTD [OPUC]
- Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
- Two CCs to GP for GAD. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
- Two CCs to GP for Higher Education. High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10.9 L.R. Copies. ^
Affairs, New Delhi.
gl
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/02/2024
COMMON ORDER
WA.No.556, 590, 591 of 2021 & 777 of 2022 & 1169 of 2023
REJECTING THE ALL WA’s WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Board could invoke Rule 31 relaxation to fill Librarian posts by recruitment-by-transfer contrary to the C&R Rules?
Whether G.O.Rt.No.1411 dated 28.11.2019 permitting such appointments was legal?
Whether the contract Librarians were entitled to regularization of their services?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka Vs. UmadeviReferred¶5
State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi
Sri M.V. Dixit and others Vs. State of Karnataka and othersApplied¶17
ILR 2004 KAR 3802 · Who else cites this
V.B. Badami and others Vs. State of Mysore and othersApplied¶32
1976 2 SCC 901 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, rep. by its Executive Officer
J. Bhaskar
G. Sudhakar
Pakala Devakanth
Dr. K.C. Muthyalaiah Chetty
State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments) Department
G. Narendar
Nyapathy Vijay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
