Telangana High Court
WP/2968/2002 of C.S.S.R.L. Hanumantha Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2010
L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2968 OF 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Part-time Lecturer in Mathematics in the year 1992 in the M.R.College, Vizianagaram, a private aided educational institution, 3rd respondent herein. A notification was issued by the 3rd respondent on
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.2968 OF 2002
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:
The petitioner was appointed as a Part-time Lecturer inMathematics in the year 1992 in the M.R.College, Vizianagaram, aprivate aided educational institution, 3[rd] respondent herein.
A notification was issued by the 3[rd] respondent on 16-06-1995,proposing to fill various posts, including two posts of Lecturers inMathematics and Statistics, which are not admitted to grant-in-aid. Petitioner states that he was one of the candidates selected by theSelection Committee. His grievance is that the proposals, sent by the3[rd] respondent, are not being approved by the Commissioner andDirector of College Education, the 2[nd] respondent herein.
2. While admitting the writ petition, this Court passed an interimorder on 13-10-2004, directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider the caseof the petitioner. In compliance with the said direction, the 2[nd]respondent passed an order, dated 25-01-2004. It was mentioned thatagainst two notified posts of Lecture in Mathematics and Statistics, V.Srinivasa Murthy and P. Konda Babu were selected and the petitionerwas not selected at all. Stating this and some other reasons, the 2[nd]respondent rejected the case of the petitioner. An application is filedwith a prayer to amend the writ petition, proposing to challenge theproceedings, dated 25-01-2004, also.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Higher Education and the learned counsel forthe 3[rd] respondent.
4. The petitioner asserts that he has been selected against anunaided vacancy, notified on 16-06-1995. The 2[nd] respondent has adifferent version. According to him, the petitioner was not selected at all. This Court cannot examine such disputed questions of fact. Further, the Government has been passing orders, year after year, inrelation to imposition of ban of appointment or absorption ofincumbents against the aided vacancies in private educationalinstitutions. If there does not exist any impediment now, and if thereare any vacant aided posts, the petitioner as well as the 3[rd] respondentcan renew their efforts.
5. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to thepetitioner and the 3[rd] respondent to approach the 2[nd] respondent forabsorption, in case, there exists any such facility. As and when suchapplication is made, the 2[nd] respondent shall consider the same on itsown merits. There shall be no order as to costs.
December 29, 2010.KTL
____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J