Telangana High Court
WP/832/2001 of Dr. Veerabrahma Krishna Vs Kakatiya University, on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 832 of 2001 Between: Dr. Veerabrahma Krishna S/o V.Yadagiri Hanmakonda, Warangal Dist.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 832 of 2001
Between:
Dr. Veerabrahma Krishna S/o V.Yadagiri
Hanmakonda, Warangal Dist.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 Kakatiya University, Rep by its Registrar, Warangal.
2 Govt of A.P., Rep by its Secretary, Higher Edu. Dept., Secretariat, Hyd. Secretariat, Hyd.
3 University Grants Commission, rep by its Secretary, Bahadur Sha Jaffar Marg, New Delhi 110 002. Bahadur Sha Jaffar Marg, New Delhi 110 002.
.....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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs order or directiondeclaring the orders issued in GOMs No.173, Higher Education UE.II(1) Dept., dt 12-12-2000 amending GOMs No.208 dt 29-6-99 and the action of the respondents innot paying the petitioner in the same pay scale of Rs3700-5700 as is being paid todirect recuritees, as illegal, void, discriminatory and violative of fundamental rightsguaranteed under Arts 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and to direct therespondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post ofprofessor, by virtue of service rendered in the post of reader in the first respondentUniversity irrespective of the scale of pay or in the alternative to hold that thepetitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of professor undercareer Advancement Scheme as per the application made by the petitioner pursuantto notification issue by the first respondent University on 27-3-2000, duly taking intoconsideration the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the said notification, by holdingthat the provisions of GOMs No.173 dt 12-12-2000 are only prospective in operationand it is not applicable to the case of the petitioner.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY
Counsel for the respondent No. 1: B. Narayana Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP 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:
Heard both sides.
It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on either side that thequestions involved in this Writ Petitions are squarely covered by the judgment of theDivision Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1735 of 1998 and W.P.Nos. 5426,36492 of 1998 dated 21.9.2001.
Following the same, this Writ Petition is also allowed. No Costs.
______________
28.12.2004
ka
That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.
Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Tuesday, TheTwenty Eighth Day of November Two Thousand and Four.
To
1. Registrar, Kakatiya University,
Warangal.
2 The Secretary, Govt of A.P.,Higher Edu. Dept., Secretariat, Hyd.
3 Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Sha Jaffar Marg, New Delhi 110 002
4. 2 CCs to G .P. for Higher Education, High Court of A.P. Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)
5. 2 CD copies.