Dr. B. Sreekanth, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

DR. B. SREEKANTH,, S/O. LATE, B.P.RANGASWAMY, AGED 52 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY (FORCED TO RESIGN)S.K.UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPUR, R/O SRI RANGA NILAYAM, MUCHUKOTA (V),-515445 PEDDAPAPPUR (M),ANANTAPUR -DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT OF HIGHER EDUCATION AP, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI

¶14

SRI KRISHNA DEVARAYA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, ANANTAPURAMU

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM VICE-CHANCELLOR, SRI KRISHNA DEVARAYA UNIVERSITY, ANANTAPURAMU

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

2

¶18

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 pass orders particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus declaring the (i) Resolution No.1823417(3.2.4) dt. 28.6.2023 as constructive dismissal without enquiry and (ii) Revisional orders in Resolution No. 193-3537 (3.1.1), dt.11.07.2025 of the 3^rd respondent rejecting the revision and (iii) communication in No. SKU/T. Estt 12025, Dt.14-07-2025, as illegal, arbitrary, misconceived, violative of the principles of natural justice without application of mind and violative of Art. 14, 19 and Art.21and 311 of the Constitution of India besides being contrary to the provisions of A.P. Universities Act, 1991 and Rule 29 of the University laws. Part VIII (Appendices) and the settled principles of law declared by the Honble Supreme Court and consequently set aside the same and to direct the Respondents, to restore the Petitioner herein as Asst. Professor in (Dept of Zoology) as per its own recommendation vide the resolution No. 191 - 3529(3.2.4) dt.20.11.2024 by itself, with effect from 28.06.2023, with all consequential benefits and to pass such other orders.

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 may be pleased to suspend Resolution No. 182- 3417(3.2.4) dt. 28.6.2023 and revisional orders in Resolution No. 193-3537 (3.1.1), dt. 11.07.2025 of the respondent No:SKU/T. Estt /2025, Dt 14-07-2025 of the 2^nd respondent and consequently to direct to reinstate as per 3^rd respondent’s recommendation made under resolution No.191 -3529(3.2.4) dt.20.11.2024 by itself and pass such other orders.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY

¶23

3

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.O UDAYA KUMAR SC For S K UNIVERSITY

¶26

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶27

3.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

Whether the order is :

¶30

Speaking No/ Reasoned No Reportable No/Non-Reportable Yes

¶31

4

¶32

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.19509 of 2025

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the Resolution No.182-3417(3.2.4), dated 28.06.2026 as constructive dismissal without enquiry and rejecting the revisional orders in Resolution No.193-3537(3.1.1), dated 11.07.2025 passed by Respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶36

The facts, in brief, are as follows;

¶37

The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Respondent No.2-University on 27.01.2010. While so, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.766 of 2011 passed interim order in I.A.No.2 of 2021 on 28.07.2021 to implement the UGC Pay Scales. The Petitioner then gave a representation for extension of minimum time scale to him as directed in the said appeal.

¶38

On 20.10.2021, the Petitioner was placed under suspension on certain allegations. After conducting enquiry by the Executive Committee it was recommended to drop all the charges framed against the Petitioner and the Executive Council had resolved to reinstate the Petitioner vide Resolution dated 21.03.2023 and proceedings were also issued to that effect on 01.05.2023. In spite

¶39

5

¶40

of the resolution, it is stated that the Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent-University issued another proceedings proposing to constitute another committee of enquiry.

¶41

On account of the disturbed work atmosphere and the health condition of his wife, the Petitioner applied for leave on 08.06.2023 for ten (10) months on personal grounds. However, his request was not considered and the Petitioner was unable to work. In that scenario, the Petitioner applied for Extraordinary Leave (EOL) on 24.06.2023 for ten (10) months or in the alternative to treat his request as resignation, if the laws of the University do not permit for Extraordinary Leave (EOL). Consequent thereto, the Respondents relieved the Petitioner on 28.06.2023 treating his letter as one of resignation.

¶42

It is stated that the post to which the Petitioner had resigned is still vacant. After attending to his wife’s health issues, the Petitioner sought for revision by way of representation on 14.06.2024 seeking for permission of withdrawal of forced resignation. It is stated that as per Rule 29 of the University Laws, the revision can be filed in one year. As no orders were passed thereto, the Petitioner submitted appeal to the State Government vide representation dated 22.07.2024. After due communications between the University and

¶43

6

¶44

the State Government, the State Government vide letter dated 14.09.2024 directed the Respondent-University to consider the request of the Petitioner to reinstate him as Assistant Professor and to consider the date of his reinstatement into service as Assistant Professor on Extraordinary Leave (EOL).

¶45

Thereafter, the Executive Council of the RespondentUniversity vide Resolution dated 20.11.2024 resolved that the State Government to take a final call on the request of the Petitioner. Questioning the same, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.6013 of 2025 before this Court and this Court passed an interim order on 24.03.2025 directing the Executive Counsel to take a final decision as the Government has no say either in appointment or in removal of the Petitioner. Consequent thereto, the Executive Council vide Order dated 11.07.2025 rejected the request of the Petitioner for his reinstatement into service.

¶46

A Counter-Affidavit has been filed by Respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology on 27.01.2010 along with 20 other Assistant Professors subject to the approval of the Executive Council. It is stated that the Government received several

¶47

7

¶48

complaints regarding appointments of the Petitioner and other similarly placed appointees.

¶49

Thereafter, an enquiry was ordered vide G.O.Ms.No.17, Higher Education Department, dated 03.03.2010 appointing Sri Justice A. Hanumanthu, Retired Judge of this Court as the Enquiry Authority to examine the irregular and illegal appointments. The Enquiry Committee held that the appointments made by the then Vice-Chancellor, including that of the Petitioner, were in violation of law. However, the State Government after due consideration regularized the said appointments vide G.O.Ms.No.31, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 23.08.2022.

¶50

It is stated that the Petitioner had submitted a letter on 08.06.2023 requesting for sanction of Extraordinary Leave (EOL) on loss of pay for a period of ten (10) months i.e., from 12.06.2023 to 11.04.2024 on personal grounds. In response, the RespondentUniversity informed that the EOL was not feasible in view of the commencement of the academic calendar and thereafter the Petitioner submitted a letter on 24.06.2023 and sought for EOL on loss of pay for the above said period of ten (10) months on personal grounds and further stated that in the event the Rules do not permit the sanction of EOL as the letter of resignation is with effect from

¶51

8

¶52

24.06.2023. It is stated that the Respondent-University had placed letters of the Petitioner before the Executive Council in its meeting held on 28.06.2023 and it was resolved not to accede to the request of the Petitioner and accept resignation from the said post.

¶53

It was further pleaded that the Petitioner was relieved from service on 28.06.2023 and he had submitted ‘No Due Certificate’ from all the concerned sections through his letter dated 03.07.2023 and requested for settlement of all his financial benefits. Accordingly, taking note of the request of the Petitioner, the financial benefits due to him were paid.

¶54

It was also stated that the Petitioner’s EOL for ten (10) months is unacceptable and that the Petitioner had participated in political campaigning for one political party in the State at Ananthapur during his leave period, which discloses that the EOL was only sought for participating in election campaign. As the Petitioner himself asked for voluntary resignation, now cannot turn around and contend that the resignation was conditional and that the services of the Petitioner would stand terminated on account of acceptance of letter of resignation.

¶55

9

¶56

A Rejoinder was filed by the Petitioner, wherein it is stated that the Petitioner was kept under suspension for 558 days from October, 2021 and at that time, the Respondents did not consider the suffering of the students as the Petitioner was the sole Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology and when the Petitioner is seeking for EOL, the same is denied on the ground that the students would suffer. It is also stated that steps were initiated for settlement of financial benefits in April, 2024 only.

¶57

The learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy would contend that the resignation must be un-conditional and submits that in the event EOL was unacceptable to the Respondents, the Petitioner should have been put on notice of the same for the Petitioner to take further action in that regard. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is entitled for EOL and no reasons have been assigned for rejecting the same. Apart from that, it is stated that acceptance of resignation by the Executive Council is unsustainable as they are not the competent authorities to accept the same. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in

¶58

10

¶59

Dr. Prabha Atri v. The State of U.P & Ors¹ a nd P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors v. Union of India & Ors² .

¶60

The learned Additional Advocate General Sri E. Sambasiva Prathap appearing for the Respondent-University would submit that the Petitioner ought to have raise the issue of acceptance of resignation at the earliest point of time and that the Petitioner accepted the decision of the Executive Council by submitting ‘No Due Certificate’ from the concerned Department on 03.07.2023. It is further stated that the EOL is not sanctioned on mere asking and there should be a substantial reason for an individual to seek for EOL and as the Petitioner did not give any reason for seeking EOL, the same was rightfully rejected and the acceptance of the resignation was rightfully done so by the Executive Council. It is stated that the Executive Council is the final authority relating to University and no interference is required.

¶61

Heard the respective counsels.

¶62

The Petitioner vide letter dated 24.06.2023 sought for sanction

¶63

of EOL on loss of pay on personal and domestic grounds. It is further stated that if the Rules do not permit sanction of EOL on loss of pay

¶64

1 2003 (1) SCC 701

¶65

2 1984 (2) SCC 141

¶66

11

¶67

the letter was requested to be considered as resignation from the post of Assistant Professor. It is also stated that in the said letter, to settle all his pending arrears amount and credit the same at the earliest. The relevant portion of the letter reads as under;

¶68

“Ref: My letter No. Nil dt.08.06.2023

¶69

I wish to bring to your kind notice that, I sought for sanction for Extraordinary Leave on Loss of Pay (Ref) cited supra on my personal & domestic grounds, if rules doesn’t permit for the Sanction of Extraordinary Leave on loss of pay kindly consider this as my resignation from today to the post of Assistant Professor in Department of Zoology, S. K. University, Anantapur.

¶70

In context of considering the resignation, if Extraordinary Leave on Loss of Pay is not applicable as per the rules. I request you to kindly settle all my pending arrears amount and credit the same at the earliest for which act of your kindness I shall be ever grateful to your sir.

¶71

Thanking you.”

¶72

The said request of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner is only the faculty member of Zoology and he has not mentioned any valid reason for the leave by the Executive Council on 28.06.2023. The relevant portion of the resolution reads as under;

¶73

12

¶74

“Resolution: The Executive Council considered the issue and resolved that the request of Dr. B. Sreekanth, Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology, S.K. University for sanction of Extraordinary Leave for 10 months i.e., 12.06.2023b to 11.04.2024 is rejected on the ground that he is only the faculty member in the Department of Zoology and that he has not mentioned any valid reason for leave.

¶75

Further, considering his request to accept resignation for the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology and he has not mentioned a valid reason for leave.”

¶76

Further, considering his request to accept resignation for the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology, if rules does not permit for sanction of Extraordinary Leave, it is resolved to accept the resignation request of Dr. B. Sreekanth, Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology, S.K. University w.e.f. 28.06.2023. Further, permitted the University to settle pending arrears due to the faculty member, if any, as per rules.”

¶77

Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted ‘No Due Certificate’ and the Registrar of the Respondent-University had passed order to the Financial Officer to pay the arrears for the period from 27.01.2021 to 30.03.2022. While so, the Petitioner filed revision on 14.6.2024 questioning the acceptance of the resignation and re-ignited the issue.

¶78

13

¶79

Firstly, the EOL is not a matter of right for any individual. In the letter given by the Petitioner, no reasons are forthcoming for seeking EOL for the period 12.06.2023 to 11.04.2024 except stating that the same is required for personal and family reasons. In the absence of any reason the rejection of EOL by the Executive Council vide Resolution dated 28.06.2023 cannot be faulted with. It is to be noted that even in the pleadings in the Writ Petition or in the material papers, nothing is filed to substantiate the reasons for seeking EOL.

¶80

Secondly, the letter of resignation, not only speaks of resignation, but consciously requests disbursal of financial benefits due to him on acceptance of resignation. In this case, as mentioned above, the Petitioner, after being informed of the rejection of his request by the Executive Council, had submitted ‘No Due Certificate’ and certain financial benefits were disbursed to the Petitioner. After all this and after staying away from the employment for the desired EOL period, the Petitioner re-ignited the issue of resignation vide revision dated 14.6.2024 i.e., nearly one year after the decision of the Executive Council. There are no bonafides in the conduct of the petitioner.

¶81

14

¶82

It is to be noted that resignation is a state of mind of an individual to relinquish office and this state of mind could be ascertained by the follow up action and attendant circumstances. It would apt to refer to the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moti Ram v. Param Dev and Another³ .

¶83

“16. As pointed out by this Court, ‘resignation’ means the spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right and in relation to an office, it connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. It has been held that in the general juristic sense, in order to constitute a complete and operative resignation there must be the intention to give up or relinquish the office and the concomitant act of its relinquishment.”

¶84

23. As mentioned above, the submission of a No Due Certificate

¶85

for payment of residuary benefits and the unexplained gap of one year before questioning the decision of the Executive Council are clear indications that the Petitioner had taken a conscious decision to relinquish the job.

¶86

The facts are distinctly different in P. K. Ramachandra Iyer (2^nd supra) cited by the counsel for Petitioner and is inapt to the facts of this case. In the said case, the individual had sought for withdrawal of resignation vide Letter dated 27.11.1964 and without

¶87

3 1993 (2) SCC 725

¶88

15

¶89

reference to the same, the resignation was accepted vide letter dated 29.03.1965.

¶90

The other case cited by the counsel for the Petitioner is Dr. Prabha Atri (1^st supra). In the said case, a memo was issued to an individual on 05.01.1999 stating that the individual had left the hospital without informing Dr. Banerjee, who had requested the individual to give anaesthesia to a patient, who was admitted in emergency. As there was no response, the individual was placed under suspension on 08.01.1999 and on 09.01.1999 the individual replied to the Secretary of the Hospital that she had clarified her position verbally in the presence of Dr. Banerjee and that she was sick and tired on that day.

¶91

It was also mentioned that the individual was working from 1978 and if the explanation is not acceptable, she has left no option, but to tender her resignation with immediate effect. The letter was accepted on the very same day i.e., on 09.01.1999. Immediately, the individual submitted a letter on 14.01.1999 stating that she never resigned and sought to rectify the error. The explanation was a spur of the moment and hurt by the fact that a departmental enquiry was also proposed against the individual for being absent on one day, though she had rendered more than 20 years of service in the

¶92

16

¶93

hospital. In that scenario, the individual therein opined that of the explanation is not acceptable, she would resign. Another important factor is that the individual had sought for recall of the order of acceptance of resignation by submitting a letter on 14.01.1999 within (05) days of acceptance. These facts are distinctly different in this case.

¶94

In the present case, as mentioned above, recall of the order of resignation is sought almost after one year and after submitting application for No Due Certificate. Apart from the above, the other way of construing the letter of the Petitioner is that, it is more in the nature of a demand for EOL and if the demand is not met by the University, she would resign. From that viewpoint, the acceptance of the resignation by the University is perfectly is order

¶95