Dismissed

Dr.S.Pratap v. Sri Krishnadevaraya Universiy

Telangana HC10 Feb 2014WA/1641/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ appeal by potential contract teachers challenging a university decision to replace existing contract staff. The Court held the appeal unsustainable as appellants lacked requisite qualifications or category eligibility for notified posts, finding no reason to entertain it.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed with observation that related writ petition may be disposed of uninfluenced by these observations.

Dr.S.Pratap Vs Sri Krishnadevaraya Universiy — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

W.A. No.1641 of 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

Dr.Sreeramulu Pratap and others

¶8

… Appellants And

¶9

Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Rep.by its Registrar, Anantapur and others.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶12

W.A. No.1641 of 2013

¶13

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri CKR, J)

¶14

Writ appeal filed against an order of the learned single Judge vacating ad-interim order of paving the way for teaching personnel on contract basis.

¶15

The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that replacing with one set of contract teachers with another set of contract teachers is arbitrary and illegal. He would further submit that the appellants have been working on temporary basis and they are qualified to be considered.

¶16

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Sri Krishnadevaraya University would submit that in view of the Umadevi’s case is permissible for the University to appoint contract employees by replacing another contract employees.

¶17

Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel, appearing for some of the selected candidates, who have been impleaded in the writ petition, opposed the writ appeal.

¶18

On considering the facts on record, admittedly, appellants 5 to 11 are not qualified in terms of the notification dated 05.01.2013. In that view of the matter, writ appeal on their behalf is totally unsustainable. So far as appellants 2, 3 and 4 are concerned,

¶19

they admittedly not belonging to reserved category for which the posts have been notified. In that view of the matter, the appellants 2, 3 and 4 also could not have any grievance about the notification. So far as,

¶20

the 1^st appellant is concerned, he belongs to S.C. Community whereas the posts have been reserved for O.C. Women and S.C. Women in other words none of the appellants 1 to 4, who are otherwise eligible, so far as the qualification is concerned, their cases could not have been considered and could not for the post for which notified with respect to reserved categories. In that view the matter, we find no reason to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, observations made in the writ appeal for the purpose of disposal of the writ appeal and the writ petition may be disposed of uninfluenced by the observations made in this appeal.

¶21

___________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH __________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶22

Date: 10.02.2014 LSK

Dr.S.Pratap v. Sri Krishnadevaraya Universiy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.S.Pratap v. Sri Krishnadevaraya Universiy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hcl Technologies Limited Vs The Appellate Authority appointed under sec.53(1)

The Commissioner of Income Tax Hyd. Vs State Bank of Hyderabad.

Commissioner of Income Tax.Hyderabad Vs Srinivasa Hatcheries (P) Ltd.Hyd.

The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Vs The Central Govt.Industrial Tribal-Cum-Labour Court

G. Shankar Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited

The Senior Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority) Vs V.S. Malla Reddy