Telangana High Court
WP/15805/2002 of K. Kotaiah Vs The Principal Secretary to Government on 31 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15805 of 2002 Between: K. Kotaiah, S/o. Venkaiah R/o Narasarao pet, Guntur District .....
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
WRIT PETITION NO : 15805 of 2002
Between:
K. Kotaiah, S/o. Venkaiah R/o Narasarao pet, Guntur District
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.2. The Commissioner and Director of Collegiate State of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.2. The Commissioner and Director of Collegiate State of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education Department, Education, Anhdra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
3. The Correspondent,
N.B.T. & N.V.C. College, Narasaraopet,
Guntur District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus declaring as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principals ofnatural justice the proceedings Rc. No. 1245/UGC-PF-3/2001 dated 05-08-2002issued by the 2[nd] respondent and issue consequential direction to the Respondentsthat the petitioner is entitled to U.G.C. Scale of Pay as he fulfilled the conditions inG.O.Ms. No. 491 dated 16-11-1984.
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.D.V.SITARAMA MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: G.P. FOR HIGHER EDUCATION.
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedingsRc.No.1245/UGC-PF-3/2001 dated 05.08.2002 issued by the second respondent asarbitrary, illegal and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to payU.G.C. Scales to the petitioner, since he fulfilled the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.491dated 16.11.1984.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Librarian with B.L.Sc. qualification inthe year 1985. Thereafter, in the year 1993 he obtained M.L.Sc. post graduationdegree in Library Science. By way of G.O.Ms.No.159 Education (UE.2) Department,dated 30.06.1990, Government of Andhra Pradesh prescribed the pass of NationalEligibility Test (NET) or State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) as compulsory for thepurpose of appointment to the post of a Lecturer. In this case, admittedly the post ofLibrarian with M.L.Sc. is equivalent to that of a Lecturer. While so, the petitioner’srepresentation was considered and he was shifted from State scales to the U.G.C.scales. Thereafter, it was found that giving U.G.C. scales to the petitioner wasillegal, since there was no specific orders from the Government to pay the petitionerin the revised U.G.C. pay scales of 1986. Therefore, by the impugned order dated05.08.2002, the pay fixation, which was ordered in the revised U.G.C. pay scales,1986 was cancelled and sought to recover the excess amount paid to the petitionerand regulate his pay in the State pay scales.
3. According to the petitioner, though he obtained M.L.Sc. in the year 1993 and appointed as a regular Lecturer, since his services were confirmed in the post ofLibrarian with B.L.Sc. qualification even prior to G.O.Ms.No.159 Education (UE.2)Department, dated 30.06.1990, there is no necessity for him to appear for theNET/SLET as contemplated under the said G.O. In fact, earlier the respondentshave considered his case and put him in the U.G.C. scales with effect from26.05.1993 (i.e. U.G.C. scales of 1986). As this was found to be irregular by theAuthorities, they issued the impugned proceedings.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that such a course ofaction is not available to be adopted by the respondents, since all the persons, whowere appointed prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.159 dated 30.06.1990, are allentitled for being continued as Lecturers and they need not pass the NET/SLETexamination as prescribed therein.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that in the year1993 when the petitioner was appointed as a full fledged Librarian with M.L.Sc.qualification and it was not a fresh recruitment or appointment and as hisappointment, which was made in the year 1985, was already confirmed, it must bedeemed that he was already in service and he need not pass the NET or SLETexamination and as such the impugned order passed by the respondents is arbitraryand illegal.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed before this Court the proceedings ofthe Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Rc.No.2801/UGC.PF.1.2001, dated 27.03.2004, wherein the Government of AndhraPradesh after considering the representations received from various categories,directed all the categories of employees who are regularly recruited in the AidedDegree Colleges and who are on duty as on 01.01.1986 be exempted from passingthe National Eligibility Test/State Level Eligibility Test and they may be allowedUniversity Grants Commission pay scales. The monetary benefit by virtue of the above exemption shall be only from the date of issue of the G.O.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the presentG.O.Ms.No.11 dated 20.02.2004, the petitioner is entitled for being put on theUniversity Grants Commission pay scales. But, since the G.O. says that themonetary benefits would be given only from the date of issuance of the Order, therecovery as such will not be stopped as contemplated under the impugnedproceedings.
8. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on merits, the respondents aredirected to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.11dated 20.02.2004 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this Order. However, till a decision is taken in thisregard, the recovery sought to be effected in the impugned order may not be giveneffect to.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
SD/-B.V.S.SAI PRASAD
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, Anhdra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
3. The Correspondent, N.B.T. & N.V.C. College, Narasaraopet, Guntur District.
4. Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Higher Education, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (O.U.T.)
5. Two C.D. copies.
BRD
High Court
DATED 31/12/2004
ORDER
W.P.NO.15805/2002
DISPOSING OF THE W.P.
WITHOUT COSTS