G Madhavi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the clarification issued by the Government iin Letter No.1833995/UE/A2/2022-23 dt.30.10.2022 denying the benefits under CAS on the past services granting 7000, 8000, 9000 as on 7/2007 and 10000 AGP inspite of the orders issued by the Government earlier based on the proposal submitted by the State Council of Higher Education inspite of the Orders implementing the said orders by the University is without having any power

¶15

and authority and contrary to Clause 10.0 of the UGC^{Regulations2010and} contrary to the Judgement rendered by the Supreme Court^{inCivilAppeal} No.8031/2022 dt.10.11.2022 and consequently declare^{thatthepetitioneris} entitled for 7000,8000,9000 and 10000 AGPs w.e.f. 23.7.2012 and also declaring that the earlier orders issued fixing 7000,8000,9000^arelegaland valid with all consequential attendant benefits.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue Interim Direction suspending the operations of^{theclarificationissued by} the Government in Letter No.1833995/UE/A2/2022-23 dt.30.10.2022 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶19

Between:

¶20

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education (UE) Dept, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶21

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶22

AND

¶23

G. Madhavi, W/o. M.Krishna Reddy, Age: 54 years. Working as Professor in Chemistry, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, Chittoor District

¶24

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶25

The Sri Venkateswara University, Rep. by its Registrar, Tirupati Chittoor District.

¶26

(Respondent No.2 not necessary in this petition)

¶27

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt. 10-02-2023 passed in lA^No.1/2023 in WP No. 3159 of 2023 and dismiss the writ petition.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. V. RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES III

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.2:SRI BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKAR^(SC

¶31

FOR SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY)

¶32

The Court made the following order:

¶33

APHC010063632023

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶35

[3329]

¶36

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶37

WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶38

PRESENT

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3159/2023

¶40

Between:

¶41

1.G MADHAVI, W/0. M.KRISHNA REDDY, AGE 54 YEARS,WORKING AS PROFESSOR IN CHEMISTRY SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶42

...PETITIONER

¶43

AND

¶44

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION (UE) DEPT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶45

2.THE SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶46

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶47

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction^more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the clarification issued by the^Government in Letter NO.1833995/UE/A2/2022-23 dt.30.10.2022 denying the^{benefitsunderCAS} on the past services granting 7000, 8000, 9000 as on^{7/2007and10000AGP} inspite of the orders issued by the Government earlier^{basedontheproposal}

¶48

2

¶49

NV,J W.P.No.31S9of2023

¶50

submitted by the State Council of Higher Education inspite of the Orders implementing the said orders by the University is without^having any power and authority and contrary to Clause 10.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010 and contrary to the Judgement rendered by the Supreme Court^{inCivilAppeal} No.8031/2022 dt.10.11.2022 and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for 7000,8000,9000 and 10000 AGPs w.e.f. 23.7.2012 and also declaring that the earlier orders issued fixing 7000,8000,9000^arelegaland valid with all consequential attendant benefits and to pass such

\ ' A

\ \

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^the High Court may be pleased pleased to issue Interim Direction suspending the operations of the clarification issued by the Government in Letter No.1833995/UE/A^2/2022-23 dt.30.10.2022 pending disposal of the above W.P. and^topasssuch

¶55

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶56

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybepleased} Pleased to vacate the interim order dt. 10-02-2023 passed in lA No. 1/2023 in WP No. 3159 of 2023 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶57

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶58

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybepleased} pleased to grant leave to the petitioner to file Reply^{totheCounterAffidavit} filed by the 1st respondent in the interests of justice^andtopass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybepleased} pleased to permit the petitioner to file an Additional^{Affidavit,bringingthe} above facts along with Circular letter dated 30-8-2024, in the interest of justice

¶59

3

¶60

NVJ W.P.No.3159 of 2023

¶61

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶62

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to the 2nd Respondent^to file a Counter Affidavit in W.P.No. 3159 of 2023.

¶63

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶64

P V RAMANA

¶65

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶66

1.GP FOR SERVICES III

¶67

2.BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKAR ( SC FOR SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY

¶68

The Court made the following:

¶69

4

¶70

NVJ W.P.No.3159of2023

¶71

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶72

WRIT PETITION No.3159 OF 2023

¶73

ORDER:-

¶74

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^Constitution of India claiming the following relief:

¶75

“To issue writ of mandamus declaring the clarification issued by the Government in Letter No.1833995/UE/A2/2022-23 dated 30.10.2022 denying the benefits under CAS on the past services granting 7000, ' 8000, 9000 as on 7/2007 and 10000 AGP inspite of the orders issued by the Government earlier based on the proposal^submitted by the State Council of Higher Education inspite of the orders implementing the said orders by the University is without having any power and authority and contrary to Regulation 10.0^oftheUGC Regulations 2010 and contrary to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8031/2022 dated 10.11.2022^and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled^{for7000,8000,} 9000 as on 7/2007 and 10000 AGPs w.e.f 23.7.2012 and also declare that the earlier orders issued fixing 7000, 8000, 9000 are legal and valid with ail consequential attendant benefits.”

¶76

The petitioner worked as Lecturer in Chemistry in KSRM College of Engineering, Kadapa from 26.09.1994 to 12.12.2000.^Thereafter, she was recruited by the Commissioner of College Education and posted as Lecturer in

¶77

5

¶78

NVJ W.P.No.3159 of 2023

¶79

Chemistry at Layola College, Pulivendula, Kadapa from 13.12.2000 to 31.12.2002. Further, as Lecturer in Chemistry at B.T. College, Madanapalle from 01.01.2003 to 03.07.2007. A request was made by the petitioner to consider her past services from 13.12.2000 to 03.07.2007,^{whereinthesame} was considered by the University and necessary approval was accorded by the Government on according permission for her pay protection as per the LPC issued by her previous employer. The said permission was issued by the Government with the concurrence of Finance Department. Accordingly, pay fixation proceedings were issued by the University on 25.08.2011. On 02.09.2010 the Executive Council passed resolution awarding AGP 8000 w.e.f 13.12.2009 and after completion of 3 years in AGP 8000,^{theViceChancellor} issued proceedings of AGP 9000 w.e.f 13.12.2012. On 18.04.2013, the Government declared that the petitioner is entitled for counting her past services rendered from 26.09.1994 to 12.12.2000 for the purpose of CAS as per orders in G.O.Ms.No.14 Higher Education Department^{dated20.02.2010} and as per UGC Regulations. Then, proceedings were issued by the authorities counting 6 years 2 months 17 days of past services rendered by the petitioner in degree colleges i.e. total 12 years, 9 months, for the purpose of CAS. However, the respondents are denying the benefits to the petitioners under CAS on the past services granting 7000, 8000,^{9000ason7/2007and} 10000 AGP. Challenging the same, the present writ petition^{isinstituted.}

¶80

V

¶81

6

¶82

NVJ W.P.No.3159of2023

¶83

Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed separate counter affidavits stating that, the Government has considered the past service to that of her services at Loyola Degree College, Pulivendula for implementation of CAS, whereas the petitioner has put in 6 years 2 months 17 days service in KSR Engineering College. The letter dated 18.04.2013 addressed by the^{A.P.StateCouncilfor} Higher Education clearly mentioned that to count the entire past service for award of senior scale only under CAS, but not to give^{relaxationofCAS} to count 6 years 2 months 17 days to effect all promotions at a stretch. The Government issued letter dated 25.01.2014 which is misinterpreted by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court in order to obtain^{interimorders.}

¶84

It is stated in the counter affidavit that, if the total service of 6 years 2 months 17 days is to be taken at a stretch for promotion^{ofthepetitioner} under CAS as contended by the petitioner, the petitioner^{isnotonrollsofthe} University service during the period of consideration of CAS as Assistant Professor at Senior Scale. The petitioner must be on^{rollsandinactiveservice} during the period of eligibility and on the date of^{considerationbytheSelection} Committee. Further, the petitioner shall complete required service at each level of promotion and also fulfill academic pre-requisites^{forconsiderationof} promotion under CAS. If the petitioner claims of consideration^{oftotal6years}

¶85

NVJ W.P.N0.31S9 of 2023

¶86

2 months 17 days of service at a stretch, the petitioner will not be on the rolls and in active service in the University and also will not complete the required service and does not fulfill the pre-requisites and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶87

V’ \ 1

¶88

The petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavits filed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2, reiterating the contentions urged in the writ affidavit, while refuting the contentions of the respondents at their respective^counter.

¶89

During the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of “Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)” with Academic Grade Pay (AGP) 10,000 from the year 2012, in accordance with Regulation 10.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010. Based on this, the Executive Council of the University passed a resolution on 20.03.2013 approving the grant of CAS. As the said resolution attained finality, the petitioner’s prior service rendered in aided institutions from 26.09.1994 to 03.07.2007 was duly considered, especially since the petitioner, along with others, was covered under the Old Pension Scheme. Accordingly, the University rightly granted the benefit to the petitioner with effect from 30.12.2022. He further submitted that the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act has clearly and categorically adopted the UGC Regulations, 2010 for implementation of CAS within the State's jurisdiction. Therefore,

¶90

8

¶91

NVJ W.P.No.3159of2023

¶92

Regulation 10.0 of the said Regulations remains in force, entitling the petitioner to have her previous service in non-University colleges should be counted for the purpose of conferring benefits under the CAS scheme.

¶93

He further submits that, contrary to the settled proposition of law, the respondent University passed an Executive Council Resolution on 30.03.2021 and addressed letters to the Government on 20.01.2021 and 20.09.2022, requesting implementation of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) in accordance with the UGC Regulations. In response to these requests, the Government issued the impugned proceedings dated 30.10.2022, which, however, is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8031 of 2022, dated 10.11.2022.

¶94

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits^that it is a settled proposition of law that the Executive Council (EC) of the University, after considering the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the Rules^framed under the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, passed a resolution conferring certain benefits upon its employees. Such a resolution, once passed, cannot be modified or revoked by the Executive Council on the basis of subsequent instructions issued by the first respondent University. Furthermore, a later Executive Council cannot pass a resolution that either nullifies or takes away

¶95

9 NV,J \ W.P.No.3159 of2023

¶96

the-effect of an earlier resolution. He further clarified that the first respondent issued a circular dated 30.08.2024, extending the benefit of Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of ffO.OOO to similarly situated individuals at the University. Learned counsel placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Mahatma Gandhi Univeristy vs. Rincymol Mathew^ and would contend that the petitioner is entitled to reckon her past services for the purpose of CAS envisaged under the UGC Regulations. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 - University, reiterated the contentions urged in their respective counter affidavits. Further, learned Government Pleader submits that, the period of service should be counted for awarding and considering CAS to the extent of service rendered as lecturer/professor at the university or at university college only. In the present case on hand, the petitioner rendered her services at University from 2007 onwards and she was granted CAS computing her services at University from 2007 onwards only. Learned counsel also submits that, on perusal of Clause 6.3.9 of UGC Regulations, the petitioner is not entitled to grant CAS by including her past services rendered other than the university/college of the University.

¶97

Civil Appeal No.8031 of 2022 dated 10.11.2022

¶98

10

¶99

NVJ W.P.No.3159 of 2023

¶100

±1^

¶101

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner rendered her services from 1994 to 2000 at Pulivendula, 2002 to 2007 at B.T. College, Madanapalle, both colleges are neither University nor classified as University colleges, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for clubbing her past services for granting CAS since 1994. In support of the contention,^{learnedcounsel} placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Karnataka University vs. Dr. Prabhugouda^. On the strength of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment, learned counsel would contend that the petitioner is not entitled^{forthereliefclaimedin} the writ petition i.e. CAS/AGP 10,000 by counting her past services she rendered at other than the university, as such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶102

Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 - University adopted the arguments advanced by learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.1

¶103

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government^Pleader for Respondent No.1, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 University and perused the material available on record.

¶104

^(2021) 15 see 706

¶105

11

¶106

NVJ W.P.No.3159 of2023

¶107

Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record,

¶108

the points that arise for consideration are as follows;

¶109

Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant CAS/AGP or not?

¶110

Whether the past services rendered by the petitioner from 1994 to 2007 at other colleges be included for granting CAS scheme or not?

¶111

Whether the Executive Council of the University can revise

¶112

or modify its own resoiution passed by the earlier Executive Council?

¶113

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed mI the writ petition?

¶114

Pending writ petition, this Hon’ble Court granted an interim order dated 10.02.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.3159 of 2023 and the order is as follows;

¶115

For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit and considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels, there shall be an interim suspension of operation of the clarification issued by the Government in Letter No.1833995/UE/A2/2022-23 dated 30.10.2022, pending further orders”

¶116

/■

¶117

12

¶118

NV,J W.P.No.3159 of 2023

¶119

POINT Nos.1 & 2:

¶120

It is a fact that, the petitioner was initially appointed^{asLecturerand} continued thereafter, she had been continuously worked right from 03.10,1998 till she continued to work as Professor. At this stage, Regulation 10.1 of Regulation 10.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010, with respect to grant of CAS is required to be considered, which reads as under:

¶121

“10.0 COUNTING OF PAST SERVICES FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION UNDER CAS

¶122

10.1. Previous regular service, whether national or international, as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional Organizations such as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT, etc., should be^countedfor direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature these posts are described as per Appendix^III-Table No. II provided that: (a) The essential qualifications of the post held were^notlowerthan the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor as the case may be.

¶123

13

¶124

W.P.No.3159of2023 %

¶125

(b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer)^Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor,

¶126

(c) The candidate for direct recruitment has applied through proper channel only,

¶127

(d) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be. (e) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of University/State Government/Central Government/ Concerned Institutions, for such appointments. (f) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration, or an ad hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Ad hoc or temporary service of more than one year duration can be counted provided that:

¶128

(i) the period of service was of more than one year duration; (ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and (iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any break, (g) No distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (private/local body/Government), was considered for counting past services under this clause.”

¶129

14

¶130

NVJ W.P.No3159of2023

¶131

On perusal of Regulation 10.0, it reveals that, the person who rendered service either in the university or college should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor or Associate Professor or Professor. In the instant case, the petitioner herein rendered her past service at affiliated colleges of the University after having due selection as per law. Moreover, the petitioner’s appointment was not as a Guest Lecturer for any duration or an adhoc or in any leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Therefore, the petitioner’s past service rendered at affiliated colleges are to be counted and the petitioner^{isentitledtoclaimCAS} benefit on par with others.

¶132

Further, Clauses 10.1(f) and 10.1(g) of the UGC Regulations clearly demonstrate that even services rendered on an ad-hoc or temporary basis for a duration exceeding one year are liable to be counted for the purpose of the Career Advancement Scheme. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made based on the nature of the management of the institution—whether private. local body, or government—in which the previous service^{wasrendered;such} service must be duly considered as qualifying past^{serviceundertheScheme.} On conjoint reading of Clauses 10.1(f) and 10.1(g), irrespective of rendering services either in private or local body or government institutions, those services shall be counted as past services for granting^{benefitunderCAS.}

¶133

15

¶134

NV,y W.P.No.3159 of2023

¶135

Therefore, as per Regulation 10.0 of UGC Regulations, the petitioner is entitled to the claim as prayed in the writ petition.

¶136

Learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 relied upon Clause 6.3.9 of UGC Regulations 2010 to contend that the petitioner is not on rolls in the university during service during the period of consideration of CAS as Assistant Professor/Associate Professor. In this context, it is better to extract Clause 6.3.9 and it reads as follows;

¶137

“6.3.9 - The incumbent teacher must be on the role and active service of the Universities/Colleges on the date of consideration ” by the Selection Committee for Selection/CAS Promotion.

¶138

Upon perusal of Clause 6.3.9, it is evident that the incumbent teacher must be on the rolls and in active service of the University or College on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee for selection or CAS promotion. A plain reading of the clause indicates that services rendered either at a University or at affiliated colleges are to be considered. However, the learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel have vehemently contended that, as per Clause 6.3.9, only the service renderedⁱⁿ the University or its constituent colleges is eligible for consideration, and not

¶139

16

¶140

NV,J W.P.No3159 of 2023

¶141

service in other colleges. This contention, however, is misconceived. The term "college" as defined under the relevant regulations includes recognized private colleges, private institutions, local body institutions, and government institutions. Therefore, the argument advanced by the^{learnedGovernment} Pleader and Standing Counsel that the petitioner is not entitled to any consideration under Clause 6.3.9 lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.

¶142

One of the contention putforth by the learned Government^Pleaderand learned Standing Counsel is that, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Karnataka University vs. Dr. Prabhugouda (referred supra), the petitioner is not entitled for clubbing her past services from 1994 to 2007 and she is not eligible to be granted benefit CAS. But, such contention is not valid and sustainable, for the reason that, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court is with respect to Karnataka Universities Act and it is not at all applicable to the present facts of the case, since the State of Karnataka enacted its own regulation and did not adopt the UGC Regulations, therefore. Regulation 6.3.9 was not considered, whereas, A.P. Universities Act specifically adopted UGC Regulations, 2010, thereby. Regulation 10 of UGC Regulations is binding in respect of service matters in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the judgment relied on by the

¶143

17

¶144

NVJ W.P.No.3159of2023

¶145

learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel i.e. Registrar, Karnataka University vs. Dr. Prabhugouda (referred supra) is of no avail.

¶146

As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner,^{ratiolaiddown} by the Hon’ble Apex Court in The Mahatma Gandhi Univeristy vs. Rincymol Mathew (referred supra) is in favour of the petitioner^{andthefactsinthesaid} judgment are similarly situated to the present facts of the case on hand. Paragraphs 6.2 & 6.3 of the judgment read as under:

¶147

“6.2 Regulation 10.1 is required to be read as a whole. As per Regulation 10.1(f), the previous appointment as ad hoc or temporary service of more than one year duration can^becounted provided that : (i) the period of service was of more than one year duration: (ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and (iii)^theincumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation^totheadhocor temporary service, without any break.

¶148

6.3 In that view of the matter, when the respondent^worked continuously right from 1998 initially as Lecturer, thereafter her probation was confirmed; thereafter she was appointed / promoted as Assistant Professor and thereafter again promoted to the post of

¶149

18

¶150

NVJ W.P.No.3159of2023

¶151

Associate Professor on regular basis and on regular pay-scale, therefore, the respondent shall be entitled to get her regular service counted for the period from 03.10.1998 to 21.10.2011 for the purpose of grant of the benefit of CAS.”

¶152

Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment and on reading of Regulation 10.1.(f) and Regulation 10.1.(g), the petitioner is entitled to get her service counted for the past service for the purpose of grant of the benefit under CAS. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 & 2 are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

¶153

POINT Nos.3 & 4

¶154

One of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the succeeding Executive Council cannot reverse or review the decision of the preceding Executive Council and there is no provision in the Act for the same. Whereas, the learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel would contend that, the decision taken by the^{newExecutiveCouncil} supersedes the decision of the earlier Executive Council, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

¶155

19

¶156

rHi NVj %: ' « W.P.No.3159 of2023 V ' ‘‘i

¶157

In the minutes of the Executive Council meeting dated 30.03.2021, it was resolved that the petitioner’s past services rendered outside the University were not eligible for consideration, by relying on Rule 14-A and Rule 14-B of the University Rules. Through this resolution, the earlier resolution of the Executive Council dated 20.03.2013 was set aside. However the contention that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in light of the .03.2013 resolution is liable to be rejected, as it is contrary to the settled preposition Of law. The said proposition is also reiterated in G.O.Ms.No.20 ated 28.06.2023 wherein it is clarified that the succeeding Executive Council cannot reverse, review the decision of the preceding Executive Council and there is no provision in the Act doing the same. If such practice is continued, it would lead to chaos in the University administration. Therefore, the resolution passed by the Executive Council dated 30.03.2021 repealing the past service of the petitioner, i ignoring the resolution of the earlier Executive Council will not sustain in law. Therefore the petitioner i IS entitled for the benefit under CAS based on the recommendations of the then Selection Committee dated 20.03.2013. It is also brought to the notice of this Coud by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in similar circumstances. r the first respondent University rejected the resolution of the Executive Council dated 11.10.2012 reviewing the past services by i ignoring the earlier resolutions of the Executive Council dated 15.05.2010 and 30.10.2018 in respect of similarly situated

¶158

20 . NV,J W.P.No.3159of 2023

¶159

G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 28.06.2023. Accordingly, both these persons as per issues are answered against the respondents and in favour of the^petitioner.

¶160

is allowed with the 25. In view of my foregoing discussion, this writ petition

¶161

following directions;

¶162

The action of the respondents in denying the benefits^underCASon the past services granting 7000, 8000, 9000 as on 7/2007 and 10000 AGP is declared as illegal, arbitrary and contrary^{toRegulation10.0} of the UGC Regulations 2010 and contrary to the judgment rendered Civil Appeal No.8031/2022 dated

¶163

by the Supreme Court in 10.11.2022;

¶164

2 The petitioner is entitled for 7000, 8000, 9000 as^on7/2007and 10000 AGPs w.e.f 23.7.2012 with all consequential attendant benefits.

¶165

shall also 26. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if^any,

¶166

stand dismissed.

¶167

//TRUE COPY//

¶168

Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶169

SECTION OFFICER

¶170

To,

¶171

The Principal Secretary, Higher Education (UE) Dept,^{StateofAndhra} Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,Amaravathi, Guntur^District.

¶172

The Registrar, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati,^{ChittoorDistrict} 3. One CC to Sri P. V. Ramana, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Services-lll, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. One CC to Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, (SC for Sri Venkateswara University [OPUC]

¶173

Two CD Copies, ssb

¶174

HIGH COURT

¶175

DATED;02/07/2025

¶176

ORDER WP No.3159 OF 2023

¶177

ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

G Madhavi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Madhavi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandimandalama Ramana Raju @ Ramaraju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kasumuru Indiramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D Jayalakshmi Vs the State of Ap

Bysani Ratnamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M E Ramachandrudu, Vs Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar, IAS

N. Harish Reddy, Vs Sri. Shashi Bhushan kumar.