Telangana High Court
WP/7223/2004 of P.R.S.M. National Junior College, Vijayawada Vs The Commissioner of Intermediate Education, on 30 December 2008
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7223 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner-Junior College was established in the year 1982. Ten years thereafter, one section in Science and another section in Arts were admitted to grant-in-aid on 28.12.2002. The first respondent herein
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.
Conclusion
ORDER:
WRIT PETITION No.7223 of 2004
The petitioner-Junior College was established in the year 1982. Ten years thereafter, one section inScience and another section in Arts were admitted to grant-in-aid on 28.12.2002. The first respondentherein transferred the entire teaching and non-teaching staff of the petitioner-Junior College to otherinstitutions on the ground that there is no work load. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.71 of2003. The writ petition was allowed on 06.02.2004, on the ground that the petitioner was not issued anyshow cause notice. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 03.03.2004,requiring the petitioner to explain as to why its teaching and non-teaching staff be not shifted to otherinstitutions, since there is no work load. The relevant facts and figures were also furnished. The petitionersubmitted its explanation on 17.03.2004, denying the allegations. Not being satisfied with the explanation,the first respondent passed an order, dated 03.04.2004, directing transfer of the entire teaching and non-teaching staff to other institutions. The same is challenged in this writ petition.
The petitioner contends that the depletion of strength in various sections is on account of raid byA.C.B., Vijayawada and non-cooperation of teaching and non-teaching staff. It is stated that the impugnedorder was passed with a mala fide intention and in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government inG.O.Ms.No.890, Education (CE.II) Department, dated 02.08.1996.
The respondents filed a counter-affidavit reiterating their stand in the impugned order. It is stated thatever since the academic year 1999-2000, the strength in the college was almost negligible and there wasabsolutely no work for the aided staff.
Heard Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned GovernmentPleader for Higher Education.
Ten years after its establishment, the petitioner-Junior College was admitted to grant-in-aid.Accordingly 11 Junior Lecturers, including a Principal, one Physical Director, one Librarian and 12 non-teaching staff were being paid salaries from the funds of the Government. By the year 2000-2001, theCollege was running Intermediate Courses in M.P.C., B.P.C., C.E.C., and H.E.C., and in each of them, thereare separate batches of English Medium and Telugu Medium. Thus, in all, eight sections were being run.However, the strength was found to be very discouraging. By the academic year 2003-2004, the total in theeight sections put together in the first year was ‘5’ and in the second year it was ‘18’. This, obviously, istotally uneconomical strength. Neither a private institution nor the Government can afford to meet the hugesalary bill for this purpose.
Initially, the first respondent passed an order redeploying the entire teaching and non-teaching staffworking in the petitioner-Junior College. This, however, was done without any show cause notice. ThisCourt intervened and had set aside the same in W.P.No.71 of 2003. Thereafter, the first respondent issuedshow cause notice. The relevant facts depicting the strength in the academic years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 were furnished. It was pointed out that the expenditure involved is about Rs.26 lakhs per year,towards salaries. In its explanation, the petitioner attributed that the fall in strength was on account ofseveral factors, such as raid by A.C.B., Vijayawada, non-cooperation of teaching and non-teaching staff, etc. The first respondent was not satisfied with the same and the impugned order waspassed.
Though the impugned order gives an impression that the transfer is once for all and is a permanent
measure, the fact remains that from the policy enunciated by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.890, dated02.08.1996, such transfers are temporary in nature and the required staff have to be retransferred as andwhen the sufficient work load exists. In case the strength of the petitioner-Junior College increases,warranting redeployment of any teaching and non-teaching staff, it can certainly make a representation andthe first respondent has to take necessary steps as per the orders in G.O.Ms.No.890, dated 02.08.1996. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the impugned order, dated 03.04.2004, but directingthat it shall be open to the petitioner to make a representation for retransfer of teaching and non-teachingstaff to the institution as and when the strength of students and thereby the work load increases. As andwhen the petitioner makes a representation, the first respondent shall consider the same on its own meritsand pass appropriate orders, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the same. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J
Dt:30.12.2008kdl