The High Court noted that subsequent events, specifically the petitioner's promotion to Associate Professor and Professor before respondents 3 to 5, proved her seniority and disproved her apprehensions. Consequently, the writ petition was held to be infructuous.
The writ petition was dismissed as it became infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
W.P.NO. 11483 of 1999
Date: 17-02-2011
Between: Dr. U. Shameem
…… petitioner
and
Government of A.P. and others
…… Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO. 11483 of 1999
ORDER:
Apprehending that the second respondent-university would confer the benefit of selection grade, by way of Career Advancement Scheme as a Reader, to respondents 3 to 5, overlooking the petitioner’s claim to be extended the said benefit before respondents 3 to 5 were given the said benefit, the present writ petition is filed by the then Assistant Professor in Zoology.
The facts, to the extent necessary for disposal of the writ petition, are that respondent No.3 was appointed as a Senior Technical Assistant and respondents 4 and 5 were appointed as Junior Technical Assistants in the year 1986. The second respondent-university issued a notification in the year 1989 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lecturers in Zoology. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 participated in the selection process. While the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Lecturer in Zoology w.e.f. 09-05-1990, respondents 3 to 5 were unsuccessful and continued in their original post as Senior/Junior Technical Assistants. On 01-03-1997 the Government permitted the second respondent-university to re-designate respondents 3 to 5 as Lecturers in the teaching line. Subsequently, on 28-04-1999, the second respondent-university appointed a screening committee to examine the claims of Lecturers for being extended the benefit of the Career
Advancement Scheme as a Reader. Apprehending that the services of respondents 3 to 5 would be reckoned from 1986, while her services would be reckoned only from 09-05-1990 when she was appointed as a Lecturer in Zoology, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The subsequent events show that the petitioner’s apprehension in this regard is misconceived. She was appointed as an Associate Professor and, thereafter, as Professor much before respondents 3 to 5 were appointed to the said posts.
Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 to 5, would fairly state, on instructions, that respondents 3 to 5 do not dispute that the petitioner is senior to them as a Lecturer, Associate Professor and Professor in Zoology. Sri M.V. Rajaram, learned Standing counsel for the University would submit that respondents 3 to 5 have no justifiable claim of seniority over the petitioner herein.
The action of the second respondent-university in promoting the petitioner as Associate Professor and Professor in Zoology, before respondents 3 to 5 were promoted to the said posts, also goes to show that the university has, all through, treated the petitioner as senior to respondents 3 to 5. In the light of the subsequent events it is evident that the petitioner’s apprehension of respondents 3 to 5 being given preference to her claim to higher posts is misconceived.
The cause in the writ petition, in the light of the aforestated subsequent events, does not necessitate adjudication. The writ petition has become infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
_______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
Date: 17-02-2011 YCR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner’s apprehension regarding seniority and selection grade benefits required adjudication in light of subsequent events.
Whether the writ petition was infructuous after the petitioner’s promotion as Associate Professor and Professor.
Whether the petitioner was senior to respondents 3 to 5 in the post of Lecturer.
Dr. U. Shameem
Government of A.P.
University
Respondents 3-5
Ramesh Ranganathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
