Dismissed

B. Vimaladevi v. R.B.V.R.R. Womens College

Telangana HC16 Jun 2014WA/707/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ appeal challenging the rejection of an educational institution's plea for allowing a time-bound appointment without retrospective effect. The selection was made in 2003, but delays occurred due to interim stay orders from this court. The appellant filed numerous writ petitions and applications but never claimed a right to retrospective appointment. The single judge di

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

B. Vimaladevi Vs R.B.V.R.R. Womens College — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶4

Writ Appeal No.707 of 2014

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶6

The petitioner in W.P.No.16286 of 2013 filed the writ appeal feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge through order, dated 11.06.2013.

¶7

Briefly stated the facts are that the 1^st respondent-institution issued a notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Political Science, which is admitted to grant-in-aid. The appellant, responded along with others and applied for the same. Interviews were conducted by the Selection Committee on 27.07.2003. It is represented that the Selection Committee recommended the name of the appellant.

¶8

Alleging that the 1^st respondent did not take steps to issue order of appointment, despite the selection, the appellant filed W.P.No.14080 of 2004 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of on 10.08.2004 directing the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate orders in the case of the appellant within two months.

¶9

The first respondent, however, addressed a letter dated 25.10.2004 to the appellant stating that one Smt.Srilatha, a Part-time Lecturer in the same subject filed W.P.No.279 of 2002 and that an interim order was passed therein stating not to discontinue her, and in that view of the matter, the order of appointment cannot be issued to the appellant.

¶10

The appellant got herself impleaded in W.P.No.279 of 2002

¶11

and an order was passed on 31.10.2005 vacating the interim order. In further application filed by the appellant herein, an order was passed on 09.10.2006 leaving it open to the 1^st respondent to take necessary steps for appointment of the appellant. The 2^nd respondent is said to have addressed a letter, dated 18.04.2007 requiring the 1^st respondent to take necessary steps for appointment of the appellant. Ultimately, the 1^st respondent issued orders, dated 12.06.2007 appointing the appellant as Lecturer in Political Science. The grievance of the appellant is that she ought to have been appointed with retrospective effect from the date of interview or at least from the date on which the Lecturers in other subjects, who too were interviewed on the same day, were appointed.

¶12

After issuing notice to the respondents and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge took the view that there is no discrimination or illegality in the matter and dismissed the writ petition. However, it was left open to the appellant to make a representation. The said order is challenged in this writ appeal.

¶13

Heard Sri P.V.S.S.S.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A.Kranthi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and learned Government Pleader for the 2^nd respondent.

¶14

The record discloses that the recruitment undertaken by the 1^st respondent was in respect of backlog vacancies. The interviews no doubt were conducted on 27.07.2003. However, a part time Lecturer, who was working against the same vacancy, approached this Court in the year 2002 by filing W.P.No.279 of 2002. The interim order passed therein was only on 31.10.2005. Since that did not result in any favourable circumstances to the appellant, she filed M.P. and the order came to be passed on 09.10.2006, which is six months thereafter that the 2^nd respondent, who is the authority

¶15

competent to approve the appointment, addressed a letter, dated 18.04.2007 to the 1^st respondent. Shortly thereafter, the order of appointment is issued.

¶16

The appellant is not able to cite any rule, which entitles her to be appointed with retrospective effect. Further, the delay in appointment was on account of the orders of stay that were passed by this Court.

¶17

In none of the writ petitions or applications filed by her, before the order of appointment was issued, the appellant pleaded that she should be extended the benefit of retrospective appointment. Neither any rule is cited, nor any precedent is relied upon. The learned Single Judge has taken correct view of the matter and we are not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶18

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of.

¶20

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶21

_____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.

¶22

Date:16.06.2014

¶23

B. Vimaladevi v. R.B.V.R.R. Womens College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Vimaladevi v. R.B.V.R.R. Womens College

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

The Zonal Manager Vs Md.Abdul Razzaq

Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Vs J.Ramana Devi

Telangana Boggu Gani Karmika Sangam Vs Bantu Saraiah

The Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd. Vs M.v.Somasundaram S/o Vsr Somarajulu

The Registrar Vs Shri a.Machender Rao

Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Vs P. Nagamalleshwara Rao