T Priyanka Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T PRIYANKA, W/O B. PRABHU KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (ADHOC), JNTUA CONSTITUENT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KALIKIRI, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT-517234

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP-522503.

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP-522503.

¶15

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, O/O NEELADRI TOWERS, 6THBATTALIAN ROAD, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH-522503.

¶16

THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, ANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, JNTUA CAMPUS, AN ANTH APURAM- 515001.

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL, , JNTU CONSTITUENT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KALIKIRI, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-517234.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶21

“to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the intending action of the 4th and 5th respondents herein going for oral termination of the petitioner's services for 10 days with a new recruitment notification without issuing a notice or following due process of law by way of natural justice and without assigning any valid reasons for oral termination is contrary to the settled law as settled in connection with adhoc-lecturers/guest lecturers/contract lecturers as law laid down in the matter of Manish Gupta and another vs President JAN Bhagidari Samithi and Others as reported in 2022 INSC 460 as followed by the 3rd respondent through his proceedings vide Lr. No .APSCHE-Univs-C 1-999Contract Teachers dated 19.06.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the 4th respondent University to implement the true spirit of the Apex Court order as laid down in Manish Gupta matters, till the regular notification is issued for selection of Assistant Professors, the petitioner's services as adhoc-lecturer ought not to be terminated and further direct the respondents herein to pay, the minimum time scales as prescribed in the matter of Shah Samir Bharatbhai and Ors vs The State of Gujarat and Ors as reported in 2025 INSC to Adhoc Assistant Professors and pass such…’

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶23

The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in orally terminating the services of the petitioner, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that he was selected as an Adhoc Lecturer in the 5^th respondent college through a proper selection process conducted pursuant to a public notification dated 11.04.2022, for a vacancy in the Computer Science and Engineering Department, and was selected on 21.04.2022. It is contended that the respondents, without following due process of law and without issuing any notice, have terminated his services without passing any formal orders.

¶25

The said action is stated to be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manish Gupta and another vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samithi and others (2022 INSC 460), wherein it was held that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another candidate without following the prescribed regular procedure. It is further submitted that the 3^rd respondent, in compliance with the said judgment, issued a circular dated 19.06.2025 directing that such replacements shall not be made.

¶26

In reply, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent, based on the instructions furnished by the Registrar, JNT University, Anantapur, submitted that the services of the petitioner were not terminated, but that upon completion of the contract period, the respondents conduct

¶27

performance appraisal by obtaining feedback from all concerned, including students. It is stated that, as per the instructions of the 3^rd respondent dated 19.06.2025, all Universities are required to evolve performance parameters and review the annual performance of contract teachers to assess the quality of teaching and improvement in the subject. Accordingly, replacement would be made only in cases where the performance is found to be unsatisfactory.

¶28

Having regard to the rival submissions, this Court holds that, although the respondents are entitled to conduct performance appraisal of the teachers, any adverse action proposed against the petitioner shall be taken only after issuing prior notice and passing appropriate orders, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. Until such procedure is duly followed, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in service.

¶29