Dismissed

Bade Ramaswamy, v. The Chairman cum Mangaing Director

Telangana HC4 Dec 2012WA/1345/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismisses writ appeals challenging the Single Judge's direction for the regularisation of college staff into grant-in-aid posts. The Court held that distinctions drawn by the appellants were untenable given prior implementations of similar orders and superseding directions. All appeals were dismissed to confirm the lower court's findings on equal footing with previously absorbed

What did the court decide?

Common order dismissing all writ appeals and confirming the Single Judge's order for regularisation into grant-in-aid posts.

Bade Ramaswamy, Vs The Chairman cum Mangaing… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶3

W.A.No.1470 of 2012 and W.A.Nos.1350, 1351, 1345 & 1346 of 2013

¶4

COMMON ORDER: (Per ARR,J)

¶5

Since the issue involved in all the Writ Appeals is one and same, they are heard and being disposed of together by this common order.

¶6

The respondents/writ petitioners filed writ petitions seeking direction to the appellants to absorb them as lecturers in various subjects in the existing grant-in-aid posts in the respondent-College.

¶7

It is the case of the writ petitioners that the respondent-College had issued notifications calling for applications for appointment to the posts of lecturers in various subjects and the notifications were issued after obtaining permission from the appellants concerned to fill-up the un-aided vacancies as the workload of the College requires to fill-up the vacancies on regular basis. It is also stated that the selection procedure for filling-up the vacancies of lecturers/junior lecturers was issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.12 Education dated 10.01.1992. It is also stated that as permission was granted by the appellants to fill-up the vacancies, the selection committee met on 05.05.2001 to conduct the selections and that all the writ petitioners were selected for appointment to various posts in the respondentCollege. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have undergone

¶8

selection process as laid down under G.O.Ms.No.12 Education dated 10.01.1992 and the selection procedure is one and same for filling-up both aided and unaided vacancies. It is also stated that even though the persons, who are not selected as per G.O.Ms.No.12 Education dated 10.01.1992, number of part time lecturers, who were appointed by various managements without the selection procedure, were regularised as lecturers in the regular aided vacancies through various G.Os, more particularly, G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997. It is also their case that the Government has regularised all the part time lecturers and posted them to various places by Memo No.39100/CE.II1/98-4 dated 30.10.99, even though they are not selected as per selection procedure laid down under G.O.Ms.No.12. It is also stated that through G.O.Rt.No.1, EducationICE.II.2) Department dated 01.01.2000 the Government admitted one un-aided lecturer, who was working at S.K.R.S.C. Degree College at Proddutur in the grant-in-aid and the similar relief is to be extended in their case. It is also stated that one Devaiah, who was working as unaided lecturer at NBT & NVC, Narasaraopet, was admitted and posted to RVVN College, Dharanikota. It is also stated that vide proceedings Rc.No.1925/Admn.VI-2/2000-2 dated 24.08.2001, but the appellants absorbed the unaided lecturer of SS & N College, Narasaraopet into grant-in-aid in the existing vacancy and that similar benefit is not extended in the case of the petitioners even though they also stand on the same footing. It is also their case that number of persons were absorbed into grand-in-aid posts with or without the orders of the Court and the orders passed in several cases by the learned Single Judges as confirmed in writ appeals were also implemented and the Government issued necessary orders for absorption of petitioners therein into aided posts. It is also their case that SLPs were filed

¶9

against the orders passed in the writ appeals and they were dismissed, as a result, all the orders were implemented, but they were only discriminated, and as such, their cases should be considered on par with others who have been admitted into grant-in-aid posts. The respondent-College also recommended their case for absorption into grant-in- aid posts.

¶10

Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education stating that the appointment of petitioners as part time lecturers by the respondent-College is quite contrary to the instructions of the Government. The Government in Memo No.1458/CE-2/91-1 Education dated 11.07.1991 have ordered that in case of need those part time lecturers who worked during 1989-90 and 1990-91 should be considered for appointment and no fresh persons should be appointed. In Director of Collegiate Education’s proceedings in Rc.No.2000/GC-III-4/89 dated 04.07.1990, instructions/directions were also issued to all the Correspondents/Managements of private aided Colleges in the State not to appoint fresh persons as part time lecturers. Despite the clear instructions as stated the above, the Management of the respondentCollege has appointed the petitioners in un-aided part time lecturers much against the rules and procedure. It is also stated that the proceedings in Rc.No.2536/Admn.VI-2/2000 dated 19.12.2000 were issued by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education according permission to the respondent-College to fill-up un-aided lecturer posts duly following the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.119 Education dated 22.03.1991, G.O.Ms.No.12 Education dated 10.01.1992 and also the instructions issued in Commissioner of Collegiate Education’s proceedings No.4996/PC.I-4/95 dated 18.09.1995. It is also stated that

¶11

the respondent-college has taken steps and the selection took place. It is also stated that all the writ petitioners qualified to hold the posts of lecturers, but mere possessing of qualification will not confer any right on them for claiming absorption into grant-in-aid. It is also stated that permission was granted only to fill-up un-aided lecturer posts and it has been clearly informed that the expenditure in this regard will be met by the Management only and there should not be any financial commitment on the part of the Government. Hence, the petitioners have no claim to seek absorption into grant-in-aid posts. It is also stated that 23 part time lecturers were regularised as per orders issued in G.M.No.39100/CE.II-I/98-4 dated 30.10.1999 as they fulfilled the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.328 Education dated 15.10.1997. As the petitioners are not covered under the above said G.O. they cannot claim regularisation on par with other part time lecturers.

¶12

The respondent-College filed counter affidavit admitting that they were permitted by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to fill-up the unaided lecturer posts in terms of G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10.01.1992 and that they have submitted proposals to the said authority for absorption of the services of the petitioners into grant-in-aid posts.

¶13

The learned Single Judge relying on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5189 of 2006 and also various proceedings i.e., Memo No.39100/CE.II-1/98-4 dated 30.10.1999 issued by the Government, proceedings in Rc.No.1093/Admn.III-1/2001 dated 24.08.2001 issued by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, G.O.Ms.No.6 Higher Education (I.E.II.1) Department dated 19.01.2011 and G.O.Rt.No.677 Higher Education (CE.II-2) Department dated 09.09.2011, allowed the writ petitions directing the appellants to regularise the services of the

¶14

writ petitioners into grant-in-aid posts held by them from the date of their appointments with all consequential benefits. The same is challenged in these writ appeals.

¶15

The learned Special Government Pleader for the Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants contended that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are contrary to law and the learned Single Judge erroneously directed for regularisation of the services of the petitioners, that the writ petitioners were not selected to the aided posts and their selection is only to unaided posts, as such, they cannot be admitted into grant-in-aid posts, that it is the discretion of the Government either to admit the writ petitioners into grant-in-aid or not, that there is ban for appointment of the aided posts, as such, the case of the writ petitioners cannot be considered, and that the Apex Court in several matters held that regularization is not a matter of course and the petitioners do not deserve for admission of their services into grant-in-aid posts. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others V. Umadevi (3) and others^[1] and State of Rajasthan and others V. Dayalal and others^[2] .

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners submitted that the learned Single Judge by relying on the earlier judgments passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the appellants allowed the writ petitions. It is also submitted that the respondents/writ petitioners cannot be discriminated, when in several cases this Court allowed the writ petitions by directing the appellants to admit the petitioners therein into grant-in-aid, and in pursuance of the same, those orders were

¶17

implemented admitting the petitioners therein into grant-in-aid posts and that they are all working presently. In some cases, even the Supreme Court confirmed the orders passed by this Court. It is also submitted that the appellants have considered the cases of several persons who are similarly situated like the petitioners herein with or without orders of the Court, as such, now the Government cannot contend that the writ petitioners are not entitled for absorption into grant-in-aid posts. In support of his case, the learned counsel filed additional material papers. The learned counsel also cited orders in W.A.No.1047 of 2012 dated 05.09.2012 wherein similar directions were issued and the Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P.No.38336 of 2012 by order dated 07.01.2013 while confirming the said directions.

¶18

We have gone through the orders in W.A.No.851 of 2010 dated 15.02.2012 and also the orders dated 05.09.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1047 of 2012 which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.38336 of 2012 by order dated 07.01.2013 and also various proceedings issued by the Government wherein certain persons were admitted into grant-in-aid posts without the orders of the Court. Similar orders passed in several cases and also the orders passed by the learned Single Judges have become final. As such, the appellants cannot try to distinguish the cases of the writ petitioners by citing above-mentioned judgments. When the appellants themselves have admitted similarly situated persons like the writ petitioners into grant-in-aid on their own and also on the orders passed by this Court, now they cannot contend that the petitioners’ cases have to be treated on a different footing. In all these cases, the learned Single Judges merely relied on the judgments in other cases which have been implemented and they have become

¶19

final. In view of the same, it is not proper for the appellants to treat the petitioners on a different footing and it is not necessary for us to go through the judgments cited by the learned Special Government Pleader for the Additional Advocate General, since the issue is squarely covered by the judgments referred to by the learned Single Judges as well as by us. Therefore, we do not find any error or infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Single Judges and we confirm the same.

¶20

Accordingly, all these Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ appeals shall stand disposed of.

¶22

_______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.

¶23

_________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J. 26^th July, 2013 cbs

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶25

W.A.No.1470 of 2012 & Batch