Dr v. Chandra Kumar v the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Mar 2025WP/3289/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

absorption into aided posts; Lecturer in Chemistry; unaided Lecturers; Memo No.6053/CE.A.I/2017 dated 30.11.2018; Procs.Rc.No.30/Admn.II-A-I/2016 dated 21.11.2018; W.A.No.1193 of 2023 and batch dated 23.08.2024; similarly situated person; individual consideration of absorption claims; eight weeks to pass orders; Article 226; writ of mandamus; higher education; Andhra Pradesh; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with the very same observations as the Division Bench common judgment in W.A.No.1193 of 2023 and batch dated 23.08.2024; respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders preferably within eight (08) weeks from receipt of the petitioner's representation; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. ¶¶36

Dr v Chandra Kumar Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the Memo No.6053/CE.A.I/2017 dated 30.11.2018 of the 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Procs.Rc.No.30/Admn.II-A-I/2016 dated 21.11.2018 are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶¶26

Court's answer

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the very same observations as the common judgment in W.A.No.1193 of 2023 and batch dated 23.08.2024, since the petitioner is also a similarly situated person.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

The respondent authorities shall pass appropriate orders preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed as a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging Memo No.6053/CE.A.I/2017 dated 30.11.2018 of the 1st respondent and consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Procs.Rc.No.30/Admn.II-A-I/2016 dated 21.11.2018, seeking absorption of the petitioner into an aided vacancy of Lecturer in Chemistry on par with unaided Lecturers absorbed pursuant to the Court's directions. Following the Division Bench common judgment in W.A.No.1193 of 2023 and batch dated 23.08.2024, and treating the petitioner as similarly situated, the High Court (Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa) disposed of the petition with the same observations, directing the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders preferably within eight (08) weeks of receipt of the petitioner's representation. No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

¶2

APHC010073672019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 3289/2019

Between:

Dr V Chandra Kumar

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.N BHARAT BABU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶20

2.V R MACHAVARAM

¶21

3.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP)

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with

¶25

the following prayer:

¶26

“…..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (i) declaring the Memo No.6053/CE.A.I/2017 dated 30.11.2018 of the 1^st respondent and the consequential proceedings of the 2^nd respondent vide Procs.Rc.No.30/Admn.II-A-I/2016 dated 21.11.2018, as illegal, arbitrary,

¶27

¶28

discriminatory and consequently to set-aside the same; and (ii) consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant permission to the 3^rd respondent to absorb the petitioner into the aided vacancy of Lecturer in Chemistry in the 3^rd respondent college with all consequential benefits, on par with other unaided Lecturers who were absorbed in pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble court, (iii) and pass such other order or orders…...”

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1193 of 2023 and batch, dated 23.08.2024, disposed the writ appeals with some directions. Learned counsel would submit that the present petition also may be disposed of in the same lines.

¶30

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education would submit that in the light of the common judgment referred, appropriate orders may be passed.

¶31

It is relevant to extract the observations made in the common judgment passed in W.A.No.1193 of 2023 and batch, dated 23.08.2024, at para Nos.11 and 12, which reads as under:

¶32

“11. That apart, as seen from the order of the learned Single Judge it is evident that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that there was no counter on record. The detailed counter filed by the State amply clarifies the stand of the State in so far as absorption of the respondents into aided posts. The case of each of the respondent/employees has to be considered individually on merits and appropriate orders must be passed against each of the employee. There cannot be an omnibus consideration of the cases of the respondents and it is not expected that the State shall pass an omnibus order in the cases of all similarly placed employees who are seeking regularization. The State has to consider each case of the employee duly taking into account their terms of employment and whether the private colleges have followed the procedure stipulated under the GO for selecting the respondents. The State ought to also consider the terms and conditions of employment before passing the detailed order. The respondents shall submit individual applications to the appellants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of

¶33

¶34

this order. The respondents shall also submit the relevant annexures, such as, the appointment letter, service record if any available with the respondents and any other document relating to their claim for absorption into aided posts.

¶35

12. The appellants shall pass appropriate orders preferably within a period of 8 (eight) weeks after receipt of such representations from the respondents. With these observations the writ appeals are disposed off without costs.”

¶36

In the light of the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the very same observations referred supra, since the petitioner is also similarly situated person. The respondent authorities shall pass appropriate orders preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

_________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date: 07.03.2025

ARR

226