Dismissed

Prof. Dr.Gali Vinod Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jun 2023WP/5543/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the appointment of Prof. B.Vijayalaxmi as Convener for TS LAWCET. The Court held that appointment is a discretionary exercise not governed by service jurisprudence or seniority, and no violation of fundamental rights was demonstrated.

What did the court decide?

Both Writ Petitions were dismissed without costs, and the appointment of the Respondent was upheld.

Prof. Dr.Gali Vinod Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s61

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{MUMMINENI SUDHEERKUMAR}

¶7

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 5543 OF 2023^{AND 44112 OF 2022}

¶8

W.P. No: 5543 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Prof. Dr.Gali Vinod Kumar, s/o Late Sri^{Gali Kattaiah, Aged 52 years,Occ-} DEAN, Faculty of Law, University^College of^{Law, Osmania-University,} Hyderabad, R/O U.tto-tZ-1-13211.^{Flat No.202, StreetNo- 3,Tarnaka,} Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Department of Higher} Education, Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The Chairman, Telangana State Council^{for Higher Education (TSCHE), Opp.} Mahavir Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad^{- 500028.}

¶15

3 The Osmania University, Rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad - 500007. 4 The Vice Chancellor, Osmania University, Hyderabad^- 500007. 5 Prof.B.Vijayalaxmi, Department of Law and Director, Legal Cell, Osmania University, University College of Law, Osmania University,^Hyderabad- 500007, T.s.

¶16

b Prof. Dr.G.B.Reddy, s/o Not known to the^{petitioner,Aged 54 years, Occ-} Professor-Law, Director, PGRRCDE, Osmania University, Hyderabad^- 500007, r.s.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF TUANDAI/US declaring the appointment of Sth respondent as Convener - TS LAWCET and PGLCET, for 2023, vide Proceedings No.TSCHE/CETs/CMP/Convener/TS LAWET and PGLCET- 2023123, dated 0710112023, as issued by R-2 in consultation with R-4, non-consideration of Legal Notice, dated 2811112022 as^got issued by the Petitioner, non- consideration of the Petitioners seniority and^position as DEAN, Faculty of Law, Osmania

¶19

)

¶20

University, as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, and violative of Artrcles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, violative of the TS Law Cornmon Entrance Rules, 2004, and also violative of Principles of Natural Justrce, equity and conscience and consequently set aside the appointment of sth respondent as Convener, TS LAWCET and PGLCET, and direct the Respondents 2 and 4 to appoint the^petitioner herein as Convener, TS LAWCET and PGLCET for 2023, in the interest of^justice besides upholding the^provisions of TS Law Common Entrance Rules,2004, especially Rule 6

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the Proceedings No.TSCHE/CETs/CMP/Convener/TS LAWET and PGLCET-2023123, daled 0710112023, as issued by R-2 in consultation with R-4, appointing R-5 as Convener-TS LAWCET and PGLCET, 2023, pending disposal of lhe above Writ Petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B. SREE RAMA KRISHNA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3: SRI CH. JAGANNATHA RAO

¶25

(sc FoR osMANrA UNTVERSTTY)

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.2,5. : M/s. C. VANI REDDY,

¶27

SC FOR TS HIGHER EDUCATION

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: M/s. PRATHUSHA BOPANNA Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRl. R. ANURAG

¶29

W.P.NO: 441'12OF 2022

¶30

Between:

¶31

Prof.Dr.Gali Vinod Kumar, s/o. late Gali Kattaiah, Aged about 51 years, occ. Dean, Faculty of Law, University College of Law, Osmania University, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.12-1-13211 , Flat No.202, Street No.3, Tamaka, HYderabad

¶32

...PETrroNER

¶33

AND

¶34

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Higher Education Department, Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad 500 029

¶35

2 The Telangana State Council for Higher Education (TSCHE), Chairman, Opp. Mahavir Hospital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad -50O 028

¶36

J The Osmania University, Rep. by its Registrar, Tarnaka, Hyderabad -500 007.

¶37

4 Prof Dr.G.B.Reddy, s/o. not known to the Petitroner, aged about 54 years, occ Professor in Law, Convenor, TS LAWCET and PGLCET, Office of the Convenor, TS LAWCET and PGLCET University College of Law, Osmania University, Hyderabad -500 007.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not considering petitioners candidature for appointment as Convenor, TS LAWCET and TS PGLCET for the academic year 2023-2024 as arbitrary, illegal and u nconstitutiona I even though petitioner is fully eligible and qualified and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and appoint petitioner as Convenor, TS LAWCET and TS PGLCET for the academic year 2023- 2024 lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶40

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and appornt the petitioner for the post of Convenor, TS LAWCET and TS PGLCET for the academic year 2023 - 2024 forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B. SREE RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.l: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/s. C. VANI REDDY, SC FOR TSCHE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRl. CH. JAGANNATH RAO, SC FOR OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: --

¶43

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶44

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.5543 OF 2o23 AND 44112 OF 2022

¶45

COMMON ORDER:

¶46

The petitioner, in both the Writ Petitions, is working as Dean, Faculty of Law, Universit5r College of Larr', Osmania University

¶47

He filed Writ Petition No.44172 of 2022 secking a Writ ot' Mandarnus to declare the action of respondent Nos. I to 3 in not considering his candidatr-rre for appointmerlt as C)onvener, TS LAWCET and TS PGLCET for the Academic Year 2023-24, as arbitrary and illegal 3. During pendency of the said Writ Petition, one Professor Mrs. B. Vijal,alaxmi, was appointed as Convener for TS LAWCET and TS PGLCET and as such, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5543 of 2023 challenging the appointment of the said Professor Mrs. B. Vijayalaxmi 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No.5543 ol'2023. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.6 was appointed as Convener for TS LAWCET continuously

:i1

.lsK..l \ I' i5 li 2()l-r .\ r r r t2 l0tl

¶52

for a period of four (04) years from th<: .r,ear 2O 18 ta 2022 and aggrieved by such continuous appointment of respondent No.6 herein, the petitioner filed Writ petition No.1824O of 2022 and the said Writ Petition was closed having become infructuous as respondent No.6 has already acted upon as Convener for the Academic Year 2022 2023. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the senior most Professor of Faculty of Lar,", in Univcrsity Collcge of Lanry of Osmania University after respondent No.6. But, his case is not being considered for being appointed as Convener of TS LAWCET though he is full1, eligible to be appointed as such. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.5, who is now appointed as Convener for the Academic Year 2023-2024, is a junior to him in seniorit5r in the University College of Law, Osmania University. But, the respondents in an arbitrary manner appointed respondent No.5 without considering the case of the petitioner for such appointment.

¶53

The appointment of Convener of TS LAWCET is governed by the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.26 Higher Education (U.E.II(2)) Department, dated 24.O3.2004. In

¶54

¶55

NlS K.J \ P -55-l-l 2()lr lt I t I l2 20ll

¶56

terrns of the said Rules, especially Clause (vii) of sub Rule (i) of Rule 2, the Convener means a person, not belou' the rank of a professor appointed by the competent authority in consultation with Chairperson for corrducting the TS LAWCET and performing such other functions relating to the said test as entrusted to him by the comperent nurhorit.. In terms of Clause (iv) of sub.Rule (l) of Rule 2, the competent authority means the Chairperson of the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (for short 'the APSCHE,). Under Clause (iii) of sub_ Rule ( 1) of Rule 2, the Chairperson means the Vice_Chancellor of any University in the State nominated by the Chairperson of the APSCIIE for each Academic year for conducting and discharging the functions as specified relating to TS LAWCET held by the State. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the Convener of TS LAWCET is to be appointed by the competent authority in consultation with the Chairperson i. e. , the Vice-Chancellor of the University, which is nom inated for the purpose of conducting TS LAWCBT for each of the Academic year. There is no process of calling for applications for appointment of the

-2-

\td

\ l:N I \ l'^iiJl loti (t ll I tl

¶62

Convener. The only requirement is that, a person to be appointed as Convener should be a person not belor,r, the rank of a Professor. That does not mean that everv Professor has a right to be considered for being appointed as Convener. The principles of service jurisprudence have no appiication in the matter of appointment of Convener of TS LAWCET. No vested right is conferred upon an], Professor for being considered for appointment as Convener. The very purpose of appointment of ary person as Convener is only for the limited purpose of conducting TS LAWCET for an Academic year. This is a decision rhat is required to be taken in exercise of the discretion of the competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 herein in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor of the University to which the responsibiliLy of conducting TS LAWCET was entrusted with. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner in this Writ Petition that he is the senior most Professor working in University College of Law, Osmania Universitl,, after respondent No.6 and senior to respondent No.5 etc., are all totally irrelevant considerations and the position of the petitioner being immediate junior to respondent No.6 and

¶63

---.---------7

¶64

¶65

MSK..I \ I' 5i4l 202-r&,llll2 20ll

¶66

( {

¶67

being senior to respondent^{No.5 does not conler any right} on the petitioner to claim^{for considerationof his case for} being appointed as Convener^{of TS LAWCET forthe} Acadcmic \ear 2023 2024.

¶68

Thus, l-rom the above, it is evident that^the appointment of Convener for TS^{LAWCETis to be done} through process of consultation and at^the discretion^{of the} second respondent, n,hich is required to^{be exercisedin a} reasonable ancl fair manner. [t is not the^{case ofthe} petitioner that respondent No.5 herein is not a^person qualified to bc appointed as Convener. The scope^of interlerence rn Lhc lnatter of discretionary^{powers conferred} upon the authorities is very minimal and it is only^{in case,} if any glaring irregularity or illegality is brought to^the notice of this Court, this Court would interfere^{u'ith such} acts. But, in the instant case, no such incident^of irregularity or illegality is brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner except claiming that his^case is^not being considered.

¶69

In the light of the above, the petitioner failed to demonstrate violation of any of his Fundamental Rights or

¶70

'-.-. dffi \ .- -Y--:-l ' ';':ta

¶71

¶72

\l\1, l \ l, )t rl l0l-l & lJ I ll l()ll

¶73

Legal Rights or any^{failure of the respondentsin} discharging their duties^{arrd as such,the pctitioner is not} entitled to seek any^{relief in the present Writ Petition'}

¶74

In the light of the^{findingsrecordedby this Court,} this Court does not^{deem it necessary to deal with the} other aspects that are^{raised by the petitioner and} respondent No.5 in^detail.

¶75

1 1. In the light of^{the above, this Court does not find any} merit in these Writ^{Petitions and accordingly,both thc Writ}

¶76

Petitions are dismissed'

¶77

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions,pending if any}

¶78

in these Writ Petitions,^{shallstand dismissedNo costs'}

¶79

SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANBEGISTRAR //'RUE coPY// secffiRorrtcen

¶80

To, '1 . Two CCs to GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 'High^{Courtfor the Stateof} TJlanqana,^{at HYderabad[oUTl}

¶81

, o;;'ic'i;' 5Cr.'4.^{sneE mruA rntsHnA.{d1r99ateroPucl}

¶82

5;l; dd i"^{sAi. cH. lA6nrli'rXiljIRAo;.5Cron osMANrA uNrvERSrrY} TOPUCI

¶83

, 5ri."Ct to M/s.^{C. VANI REDDY' SC FOR TS HIGHER EDCUCATION} IOPUCI

¶84

s. b"J.'"# to^{M/s. PRATHUSHABoPANNA, Advocate [oPUC]}

¶85

5;; cc i;^{SRl. R-ANURAG, Advocate [oPUc]}

¶86

Two CD^CoPies BM GJP .

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:06106t2023

-) "{ijt.^
j,
'1 //.'.,r
)
At' x
s-
N lj.'
5 o
-,|
.j jr ril:{

¶91

COMMON ORDER

¶92

WP.No.5543 OF 2023 AND 44112 OF ZO22

¶93

DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WTHOUT COSTS

¶94

Prof. Dr.Gali Vinod Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof. Dr.Gali Vinod Kumar v. The State of Telangana

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

M/s. J.P. Pharmacy, Vs The I.C.I.C.I Bank

Khairunnissa Begum Vs The Regional Pass port office

Kethireddy Jayamma Vs The Government of India

Durgam Ramu , Vs The State of Telangna

Development and Welfare Association of the Blind Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

D. Lingaiah Vs The Union of India