WP/10376/2006 of Prof. T. Jogachary, Vs The Kakatiya University, on 27 December 2007

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondent-University in not considering the case of thepetitioner for appointment to any of the statutory positions in theDepartment of Commerce and Business Management, such as,Head/Chairman, Board of Studies/Dean of Faculty at RespondentUniversity Headquarters, Warangal on the basis of seniority, asarbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondent-Universityto appoint the petitioner to any of those statutory positions.

The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petitionis whether the petitioner, who is working as Professor, Department ofCommerce and Business Management, University Post GraduateCollege, Kakatiya University at Karimnagar, one of the constituentcolleges of Respondent University in the Department of Commerceand Business Management, is entitled for any of the statutory positionsviz., Head/Chairman, Board of Studies/Dean of Faculty at respondentUniversity headquarters, Warangal on the basis of seniority.

The facts are not much in dispute. The admitted facts are thatthe petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 as Lecturer andpromoted as Reader in the year 1992 and subsequently promoted asProfessor in the year 1994 and posted as Principal of P.G. College,Karimnagar, which is a constituent college of respondent-University.

The complaint of the petitioner is that though he is fully qualifiedand eligible to hold any of those statutory positions, he is not beingposted. He is senior to many of those who have already been heldsuch positions and his repeated requests did not yield any fruitfulresults. Hence the writ petition.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondentsdenying the allegations made by the petitioner and asserting that thepetitioner is working as Principal of Post Graduate College,Karimnagar, though it is one of the constituent college of RespondentUniversity, as a matter of policy, those who are posted outside the University Headquarters are not being considered for those statutorypositions. According to the respondents, petitioner is aware of thepractice adopted in the University in this regard, which is in vogue forthe past two decades. Therefore, as a matter of policy, petitioner’scandidature was not considered for any of those statutory positions. Further, petitioner has no right whatsoever to claim statutory positionsunder law.

Heard both sides and perused the material made available onrecord.The learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddyappearing for the petitioner, strenuously contended that absolutelythere is no valid policy to negate the candidature of the petitioner forconsidering his case for being appointed/promoted asHead/Chairman, Board of Studies/Dean of Faculty at UniversityHeadquarters, Warangal. On the other hand, as per the AndhraPradesh Universities Act, 1991 and the rules made thereunder,petitioner is entitled for such statutory positions as a matter of right. Inthis regard, the learned counsel for petitioner drawn attention of theCourt to definitions of Section 2 (5), (10), (22), (23), (25), (27) and (28), which reads as under:

(5) “Constituent College” means, a college located outside theUniversity Campus and established or maintained by theUniversity for providing courses of study qualifying studentsfor admissions to the examinations in accordance withRegulations prescribed; and includes a college so locatedand established or maintained by the Universityimmediately before the commencement of this Act;University Campus and established or maintained by theUniversity for providing courses of study qualifying studentsfor admissions to the examinations in accordance withRegulations prescribed; and includes a college so locatedand established or maintained by the Universityimmediately before the commencement of this Act;

(10) “Head of Department” means, a teacher of the Universityresponsible for the coordination of instruction, training andresearch in any Department of the University.responsible for the coordination of instruction, training andresearch in any Department of the University.

(22) “Teachers” means, Professors, Readers and Lecturers ina college and such other persons giving instruction in acollege as may be declared by the statues to be teachers.a college and such other persons giving instruction in acollege as may be declared by the statues to be teachers.

(23) “Teachers of the University” means, teachers appointed bythe University to give instruction or guide research in theUniversity and constituent colleges.the University to give instruction or guide research in theUniversity and constituent colleges.

(25) “University Area” means, the area indicated against eachUniversity specified in the Schedule.University specified in the Schedule.

(27) “University College” means, a college located in theUniversity campus which is established or maintained bythe University and provides courses of study qualifyingstudents for admission to University examinations, inaccordance with the Regulations prescribed and includes acollege so located and established or maintained by theUniversity immediately before the commencement of thisAct.University campus which is established or maintained bythe University and provides courses of study qualifyingstudents for admission to University examinations, inaccordance with the Regulations prescribed and includes acollege so located and established or maintained by theUniversity immediately before the commencement of thisAct.

(28) “University Professor” means, a person appointed assuch by the University.such by the University.

From the above, it is seen that a teacher of an University,includes teachers appointed by the University to give instruction orguide research in the University and constituent colleges locatedoutside the University Campus, which is established or maintained bythe University and provides courses of study qualifying students foradmission to University examinations, in accordance with theRegulations prescribed and a college so located and established ormaintained by the University before the commencement of the Act.Thus, it is clear that the Teachers of University means, teachersworking in University colleges, as well as its constituent colleges.

The learned counsel for petitioner also drawn the attention ofthe Court to various provisions to show that Head/Chairman, Board ofStudies/Dean of Faculty are statutory positions, who shall beappointed by the Executive Council from among the members of thecolleges on the recommendations of Vice Chancellor. Further, it is thecontention of the petitioner that many of his juniors, even his ownstudents, were being appointed as Head/Chairman, Board ofStudies/Dean of Faculty and his case was denied only on the groundthat a person working in the constituent colleges outside Headquartersis not entitled for such posts. The respondents are not able to showany bar as to consideration of a Professor working in the constituentcolleges of the University outside University Headquarters for beingappointed as Head/Chairman, Board of Studies/Dean of Faculty. Onthe other hand, the learned counsel for respondent-University has

been harping upon that this is a convention like policy, which is invogue for the last so many years and even the petitioner is aware ofthe same, therefore, such a practice which is adopted since longtimecannot be disturbed unless and until a decision is taken by theExecutive Council in this regard.

The learned counsel for respondent was not able to place anymaterial to show that the so-called policy adopted earlier has thesanction of Executive Council of the University. Further, he stated thatmay be, there is no such resolution passed by the Executive Council,but now it has referred the matter to a committee and as soon as thecommittee gives its report, the case of the petitioner will be taken up. That is fine. But as of now, there is no bar for considering the case ofthe petitioner. The petitioner has been making representations for thelast more than 10 years, but they did not yield any results. Absolutely,there is no bar for considering the candidature of petitioner for statutorypositions, like Head/Chairman, Board of Studies/Dean of Faculty atrespondent University headquarters, Warangal, though he is workingas Principal, Post Graduate Centre at Karimnagar. In fact, one personhas already been considered for the post of Dean and he was draftedfrom the constituent college at Khammam. It seems, at that time, it wasresolved by the Executive Council that the committee under theChairmanship of Dr.S.Upendra Sastry may be requested to study andreport with necessary recommendations for appointment of SeniorProfessors of Constituent Colleges outside Warangal to the statutorypositions like Head of Departments and Chair persons Board ofStudies etc. In fact, there is no bar as of now. May be some peoplehave been making complaints as to deprivation of their rights beingconsidered for the post of Head/Chairman, Board of Studies/Dean ofFaculty and a committee is set up now. But unless and until the policyadopted, or any convention set up in the University, for all these years,is supported by the provisions of the Act, the respondent-Universitycannot deny consideration of petitioner’s candidature for thosestatutory positions.

The learned senior counsel further strenuously contended thatthe dignity of the petitioner is belittled and he was asked to work underhis juniors and also under his own students, who became Professors later. This is nothing but discriminatory treatment adopted among theProfessors working at University Headquarters on the one hand andthe Professors working at constituent colleges on the other hand. Further, the learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment in

E. P. ROYAPPA V. STATE OF T.N. AND ANOTHER[[1]]andsubmitted that asking the petitioner to work under his juniors,particularly, his own students, is nothing but humiliation, and contraryto the principle of equality as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution of India. I am in full agreement with the submissionsmade by the learned counsel for petitioner. Absolutely there is noprovision under the Act to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate rightfor being considered for the post of Head/Chairman, Board ofStudies/Dean of Faculty at respondent University headquarters,Warangal. The few excerpts of the above decision may be relevant tobe noted as under:

“Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action andensure fairness and equality of treatment They require thatState action must be based on valid relevant principlesapplicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not beguided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerationsbecause that would be denial of equality. Where the operativereasons for State action, as distinguished from motiveinducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimateand relevant but is extraneous and outside the area ofpermissible considerations, it would amount to mala fideexercise of power and that is hit by Arts. 14 and 16. Mala fideexercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethalFadiations emanating from the same vice: in fact the lattercomprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Art.s 14 and16.

The ambit and reach of Arts. 14 and 16 are not limited tocases where the public servant affected has a right to a post.Even if a public servant is in an officiating position, he cancomplain of violation of Arts. 14 and 16 if he has beenarbitrarily or unfairly treated or subjected to mala fide exerciseof power by the State machine.”

For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the action ofthe respondent-University in not considering the case of the petitionerfor appointment to any of those statutory positions in the Department ofCommerce and Business Management at its Headquarters inWarangal is arbitrary and illegal.

In the result, the respondent-University is directed to considerthe case of the petitioner for appointment to any of the statutorypositions in the Department of Commerce and Business Management,such as, Head/Chairman, Board of Studies/Dean of Faculty atrespondent University headquarters, Warangal, as per law, and passappropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

______________

Date: .12.2007

C.V.RAMULU,J

DA

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

.12.2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

W.P.No.10376 of 2006

Date: December, 2007

Between:

Prof.T.Jogachary

And

Kakatiya University, Vidyaranyapuri,Warangal, rep. by its Registrar.

[1]AIR 1974 SC 555

.. Petitioner

.. Respondent