Allowed

S.N.jaya Kumar, v. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanasm

Telangana HC2 Dec 2009WA/1272/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant was denied promotion due to a circular rejecting degrees from AISE, a deemed university, whose recognition was later granted by DINOU. The Court allowed the writ appeal by setting aside the single judge's dismissal order, relying on subsequent developments and a related judgment that recognized the degrees.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order dismissing the writ petition dated 1.8.2008 in W.P.No.15138 of 2007.

S.N.jaya Kumar, Vs The Tirumala Tirupathi… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶3

WRIT APPEAL No.1272 of 2008

Date: 02.12.2009

Between :

S.N. Jaya Kumar

And

The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Rep.by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District and others.

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶10

WRIT APPEAL No.1272 of 2008

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma)

¶12

Heard Sri K.Ramamohan-Mahadeva, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 1.8.2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15138 of

¶13

2007, dismissing the writ petition.

¶14

3. Appellant is the petitioner and the respondents are respondents in W.P.No.15138 of 2007. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellant and respondents are arrayed as per their array in the writ petition.

¶15

4. The facts, in brief, are that Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam through the Circular Roc.No.TL8/2797/2005, dated 29.1.2007, issued by the 1^st respondent directed all the Departments and Sections of the respondent-Devasthanam not to act upon the certificates of education qualifications issued by the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (AISE), the alleged deemed University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshar, Rajasthan. The allegation was that the courses imparted by the said Institute were not approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

¶16

5. The petitioner was initially appointed as Line Inspector by the respondent-Devasthanam and subsequently promoted as Assistant Engineer. After obtaining permission from the respondentDevasthanam, he acquired a Degree from IASE on 4.6.2007. However, by virtue of the Circular dated 29.1.2007, the petitioner was denied promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.15138 of 2007 and a learned single Judge of this Court, by the impugned order dated 1.8.2008, dismissed the same mainly on the ground that AISE from which the petitioner obtained the Degree is not recognized by the University Grants Commission. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ appeal.

¶17

6. Subsequently, the respondent-Devasthanam got the information that AISE is a recognized and deemed University of Rajasthan, and issued the proceedings Roc.No.TL8/2797/2005, dated

¶18

15.10.2008, treating the certificates acquired from AISE Deemed University, Rajasthan as valid and recognized by the University Grants Commission and Distance Education Counsel, New Delhi. However, by another proceedings Roc.No.TL8/2797/2005, dated 29.10.2008, kept the said proceedings dated 15.10.2008 in abeyance, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

¶19

“Pending examination of the said representation and documents vide representation cited in reference 2^nd read above, Sri A. Kesavulu and 16 others have filed certain correspondence/documents having a bearing on the subject cited above, the orders issued in the proceedings 1^st read above is kept in abeyance till further orders.”

¶20

7. Challenging the said proceedings Roc.No.TL8/2797/2005, dated 29.10.2008, some other employees of respondentDevasthanam, who acquired the Degrees from AISE and denied the benefit of promotion to the next category, have filed W.P.No.3149 of 2009. Another learned single Judge of this Court, while referring the judgment in W.P.No.15138 of 2007, dated 1.8.2008, by an elaborate order, dated 18.2.2009, disposed of the said writ petition with the following observations and direction:

¶21

“In view of the post-facto approval accorded by the Indira Gandhi National Open University with regard to the courses offered by AISE deemed University, Rajasthan, the petitioners are at liberty to make a representation to the respondent enclosing the copy of the letter, dated 15.12.2008, and thereupon, the respondent shall take appropriate decision after putting on notice the petitioners as well as A.Keshavulu and the rival claimants, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.”

¶22

8. We are further informed that following the judgment, dated 18.2.2009, in W.P.No.3149 of 2009, several other writ petitions were

¶23

also disposed of.

¶24

9. It is not in dispute that the factum of recognition of AISE deemed University, Rajasthan was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge, who passed the impugned order in W.P.No.15138 of 2007, dated 1.8.2008. Therefore, the learned single Judge upheld the proceedings dated 29.1.2007 issued by the respondent-Devasthanam. But, owing to the subsequent developments by way of the respondent-Devasthanam being informed by the authorities concerned that AISE has got recognition, several other writ petitions were disposed of following the judgment in W.P.No.3149 of 2009, dated 18.2.2009.

¶25

10. In other words, the circumstances prevailed as on the date of disposal of the impugned order, dated 1.8.2008, in W.P.No.15138 of 2007 have undergone changes drastically and as a consequence thereof the Degrees obtained by AISE deemed University, Rajasthan have been accorded recognition. Keeping the subsequent developments in mind, several other writ petitions have been disposed of following the judgment in W.P.No.3149 of 2009, dated 18.2.2009. 11. Therefore, following the judgment in W.P.No.3149 of 2009, dated 18.2.2009, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order, dated 1.8.2008, in W.P.No.15138 of 2007 and accordingly set aside.

¶26

12. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed, at the stage of admission, in terms of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3149 of 2009, dated 18.2.2009. No order as to costs.

¶27

JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 02.12.2009 Msr

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶29

WRIT APPEAL No.1272 of 2008

¶30

02.12.2009 (Msr)

S.N.jaya Kumar, v. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanasm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.N.jaya Kumar, v. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanasm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Ramana Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Principal

Smt.Dorapalli Lakshmi Vs The Commissioner ,Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada

G.Parandhamaiah Vs The Station House officer,Somasila Police station

Mr. Varukala Gopala Krishna Vs The Government of A.P.

K. Raja Rao Vs The Commissioner of Police

Nakka Ravana Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range