WP/15490/1990 of R.SAROJA Vs DIR.OF INTERMEDIATE.EDU.HYDAND2 OTHERS. on 30 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner approached this Court through this writ petition seeking a direction tothe respondents to regularize her services as Junior Lecturer in Economics with effect from the date of her first appointment with all consequential benefits.

2. The following are the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition.

The petitioner is a Post Graduate in Economics and she is eligible for appointmentas a Junior Lecturer in Economics.

The third respondent appointed her as a Part-time Junior Lecturer in A.V.V. JuniorCollege, Warangal with effect from 28-08-1985. She was selected by a Selection Committee duly constituted by theManagement in the year 1985. There has been a regular vacancy of the post ofJunior Lecturer in Economics since 19-11-1983. The petitioner is entitled forregularization as Junior Lecturer in Economics, but the Management did notconsider her case for regularization.

The Government of India constituted a College Service Commission in October1995. The second respondent appointed one Sri Raj Mahender Reddy, through theproceedings dated 11-10-1990 to allot him to the third respondent-Institution leading to the terminationof the services of the petitioner.

The petitioner’s appointment was done prior to the constitution of College ServiceCommission. After lapse of five years, the Commission is making appointmentsjeopardizing the vested right of the petitioner. The petitioner’s livelihood will bedeprived if she is terminated from service. Hence, the writ for the reliefs asmentioned above.

3. The third respondent filed a counter contending that the petitioner was appointedonly on temporary basis and the appointment order of the petitioner dated 20-06-1985 indicates that her appointment was only till such time a regular appointment ismade as per rules and her services will be terminated without giving any notice orwithout assigning any reason thereof. The appointment of the petitioner was notmade as per the procedure for selection of the lecturers. A letter addressed to thefirst respondent for filling up the vacancy does not entitle the petitioner to get herservice regularized in view of G.O.Rt.No.1319 Education dated 14-09-1988 issuedby the Government of Andhra Pradesh. As per the G.O., the private managementsare barred from filling up vacancies after the constitution of the College ServiceCommission.

The appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.905 Education, dated 21-09-1976. The petitioner cannot claim vested right by virtue of her temporaryappointment. Presently there is no vacancy in the faculty of Economics, therefore,any direction issued after considerable length of time would result in a difficultsituation in implementing the said order. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to bedismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.302 dated23-08-1991, the lecturers, who have completed 2 ½ years service on adhoc basis,are entitled to be absorbed as regular lecturers. He further submitted that as perG.O.Ms.No.328 dated 09-10-1997, the conditions prescribed for appointment havebeen relaxed and if there is no vacancy the management can absorb the petitionerin future vacancy.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appointment ofthe petitioner was not in accordance with the conditions prescribed inG.O.Ms.No.905. G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23-08-1991 is not applicable to the privatecolleges and it is only applicable to the Government colleges. The learned counselfor the respondents further submitted that as per the proceedings of the Director ofHigher Education dated 24-12-1984, the private Management shall not fill up anyvacant posts or posts that may arise in future as laid down in G.O.Ms.No.905Education dated 21-09-1976. The vacancies should be filled up from the availableservice commission candidates only. They are also informed that any person nowworking against and not qualified where communal roaster etc., was not followed,they should be replaced by the available Public Service Commission candidates.The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in the light of theabove proceedings, the private Managements are prevented from making anyappointments and the appointments will be made only from out of ServiceCommission candidates. As per G.O.Rt.No.1319, the lecturers shall be appointed bya duly constituted Selection Committee and as the petitioner was appointedsubsequent to 24-12-1984 without following the procedure prescribed underG.O.Ms.No.905, the petitioner cannot be absorbed into regular service.

6. In the light of the above contentions and the material placed by bothparties, the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefsas prayed for?

7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Part-timeJunior Lecturer on 20-08-1985. From the year 1984 there were clear instructions tothe Management that the appointments of the junior lecturers shall be made througha Selection Committee duly constituted by the Management by following theprocedure prescribed under the orders issued by the Government from time to time.Though the appointment of the petitioner was subsequent to 24-12-1984 she wasnot appointed by following the prescribed procedure.

8. The petitioner on the ground that the Management appointed anotherperson as lecturer filed this writ petition in the year 1990 seeking a direction to therespondents to regularize her service. The record further discloses that from the year1991 onwards certain relaxations have been given, but she was discontinued fromservice on 22-03-1991 during the pendency of the writ petition.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Managementinstead of regularizing the service of the petitioner terminated her from servicesubsequent to the filing of the writ petition thereby so much prejudice has beencaused to the petitioner.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the followingjudgments:

State of U.P. and others v. Sant Lal, Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala WaterAuthority, Vasavi College of Engineering v. A. Suryanarayana, T. Subbaiah andothers v. Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad and another, and threejudgments of this Court in W.P.Nos.15283 of 1990, 20370 of 1993, and 6722 of 1996dated 13-11-1998, 04-04-2002 and 12-06-1997 respectively.

11. Since the petitioner was not terminated from service on the date of filing ofthe writ petition, the principles laid down in the above judgments are not applicableto the facts of the present case.

12. Since this is not the case of termination of the petitioner before filing of thewrit petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitionerwas terminated from service subsequent to the date of filing of the writ petition, adirection may be given for reinstatement of the petitioner and for regularization of herservice.

13. The appointment order of the petitioner clearly indicted that she was appointed on temporary basis till the regular vacancy was filled up. The petitionercould not place any material to show that she was appointed as per the procedureprescribed under the instructions of the Government.

The relaxation, if any, was only subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner. Theappointment of the petitioner was subsequent to the proceedings issued by theDirector of Higher Education that the vacancies of the Junior Lecturers shall be filledup from the available Service Commission candidates only. Therefore, the petitionercould not be accommodated on regular basis.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that severalappointments were made subsequent to the proceedings of the Director of HigherEducation by the private managements and the services of those candidates werealso regularized but the petitioner who comes under the same category was notaccommodated. Therefore, the case of the petitioner may also be considered on parwith the other candidates, whose services were regularized after appointment madeby the respective managements. The services of the petitioner were dispensed withsubsequent to the date of filing of the writ petition. But the petitioner did not makeany amendment to the prayer or file any fresh petition challenging the terminationorder of the Management. The petitioner is no more in service, but she is seekingonly relief of regularization of her service. When the petitioner is not continuing inservice, the question of regularization of her service subsequent to the date oftermination does not arise.

15. So far as the period from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date oftermination of the service of the petitioner is concerned, the material placed by therespondents clearly indicated that the petitioner was not entitled for automaticregularization of the service since she was not appointed on the recommendation ofa duly constituted Selection Committee by the Management and she is not acandidate of the Service Commission. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for anyrelief as prayed for.

16. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

__________________

Date: 30--12--2005

Isn