Telangana High Court
Dr.L.Chandrasekhara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 July, 2018
Author: P.Naveen Rao
Bench: P.Naveen Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.20364 & 20376 OF 2018
DATED :04.07.2018
W.P.No.20364 of 2018 :
Between :
Dr.L.Chandrasekhara Rao S/o.Satyam Naidu,
Age : 34 yrs, Occu : Assistant Professor(Chemistry),
IIIT Srikakulam at Prefab Campus, RGUKT-AP,
Mylavaram Road, Nuzvid, Krishna District & Others
.. Petitioners
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Higher (Technical) Education Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District & others.
.. Respondents
W.P.No.20376 of 2018 :
Between :
Dr.M. Anil Kumar S/o.M.V.Ramana Reddy,
Occu : Assistant Professor/Guest Faculty,
Age : 41 yrs, Department of Chemistry,
Dr.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam IIIT-Ongole, RGUKT-AP,
Camp Office : RK Valley (Idupulapaya),
Vempalli (M), YSR Kadapa District,
Andhra Pradesh & Others.
.. Petitioners
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Higher (Technical) Education Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District & others.
.. Respondents
This court made the following :
-2-
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.20364 & 20376 OF 2018
COMMON ORDER :
In W.P.No.20364 of 2018, petitioners are seeking a direction to declare the action of the respondents in taking steps to terminate their services and to appoint others by replacing them vide Notification in Ref.RGUKT-AP/Estt-Contract Faculty Recruitment/2018 dt.15.05.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent and Circular dt.07.06.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent, though the petitioners were selected and appointed in regular selection under Notification in Ref.III SKLM/RGUKT-AP/Faculty/To2/2017 dated 12.05.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to UGC Regulations.
2. In W.P.No.20376 of 2018, petitioners are seeking a direction to declare the action of the respondents in taking steps to terminate the services of the petitioners and to appoint others by replacing them vide Notification in Ref.RGUKT-AP/Estt-Contract Faculty Recruitment/2018 dt.15.05.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent and Circular dt.11.06.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent, though the petitioners were selected and appointed in regular selection under Notification in Ref.III OGL/RGUKT- AP/Faculty/To2/2017 dated 23.04.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to UGC Regulations.
3. Earlier on 18.06.2018 this Court extensively heard learned Senior Counsel Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the respondent University and passed the following order : -3-
"Matter stands adjourned by two weeks to enable the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions. In the meantime petitioners shall appear before the Review Committee on the dates fixed in the circular dated 11.06.2018. However, based on the result of the assessment made by the Review Committee, if University is not in favour of renewing the contract of the petitioners, no adverse decision shall be made for a period of two weeks. List after two weeks."
4. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration for extension of interim order granted on 18.06.2018, learned Standing counsel for the respondent University placed before this Court the Note on Renewal of Faculty from IIIT Ongole and IIIT Srikakulam, dated 30.06.2018 signed by the Vice Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, Andhra Pradesh, and the same is taken on record.
5. The said Note on renewal would disclose that University has decided to renew the services of petitioners in both the writ petitions by another academic year as per the recommendations of the Review Committee.
6. As noted from the prayer sought in the writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioners was against alleged termination from service by subjecting them to interview for renewal of their contract services and to appoint others by replacing the petitioners.
7. A reading of the note on renewal now placed before this Court would disclose that there is no replacement of petitioners and their contract is renewed for another year. Thus, the prayer sought in the writ petitions is stood answered by the respondents by deciding to continue the services of the petitioners for another year. Therefore, the cause in the writ petitions do not survive and -4- accordingly, the Writ Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.
__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 4th July, 2018 Rds