Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Prof. K.Venkata Rao, on 1 April, 2021
Author: Arup Kumar Goswami
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, C. Praveen Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
W.A.Nos.381, 382, 411, 426 of 2020; 30, 35 and 46 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
W.A.No.381 of 2020
Acharya Nagarjuna University (ANU)
Rep., by its Registrar,
Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District.
... Appellant
Versus
Gajula Sarat Chandra Babu,
S/o G. Veera Sekhara Rao,
Aged 59 years, R/o D.No.2-14-126,
Mahalakshmi Nagar,
Stambalagaruvu, Guntur,
Guntur District and another.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr.Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy,
Additional Advocate General
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr.Sasanka Bhuvanagiri
Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Services III
W.A.No.382 of 2020
Acharya Nagarjuna University (ANU)
Rep., by its Registrar,
Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District.
... Appellant
Versus
Prof K VenkataRao
S/o Sanjeevaiah aged 59 years,
R/o Flat No 103 Phani Grand Apartment,
S.V. Colony Main Road, Gujjanagundla,
Guntur-522006 ...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy,
Additional Advocate General
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Venkateswarlu Posani
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 : GP for Services III
2
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
W.A.No.411 of 2020
Acharya Nagarjuna University (ANU)
Rep., by its Registrar,
Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District and
another.
... Appellants
Versus
Gajula Sarat Chandra Babu,
S/o G. Veera SekharaRao,
Aged 59 years, R/o D.No.2-14-126,
Mahalakshmi Nagar,
Stambalagaruvu, Guntur,
Guntur District and another.
... Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr.Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy,
Additional Advocate General
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr.Sasanka Bhuvanagiri
Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Services III
W.A.No.426 of 2020
Acharya Nagarjuna University (ANU)
Rep., by its Registrar,
Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District and
Others
... Appellants
Versus
Prof. K. VenkataRao,
S/o Sanjeevaiah, aged 59 years,
R/o Flat No.103, Phani Grand Apartment,
S.V. Colony, Main Road,
Gujjanagundla, Guntur-522006 and
others. ...Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy,Spl.
Government Pleader
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr.Venkateswarlu Posani
Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Services III
Counsel for respondent No.3 : GP for Finance & Planning
3
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
W.A.No.30 of 2021
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District
and another.
... Appellants
Versus
Prof. K. VenkataRao,
S/o Sanjeevaiah, aged 59 years,
R/o Flat No.103, Phani Grand Apartment,
S.V. Colony, Main Road,
Gujjanagundla, Guntur-522006
and another.
... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : GP for Higher Education
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Venkateswarlu Posani
for Mr. SubbaRao Posani.
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr.Rambabu Koppineedi, standing
counsel
W.A.No.35 of 2021
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
... Appellant
Versus
GajulaSarat Chandra Babu,
S/o G. VeeraSekharaRao,
Aged 59 years, R/o D.No.2-14-126,
Mahalakshmi Nagar, Stambalagaruvu,
Guntur, Guntur District and another.
... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : GP for Higher Education
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Sasanka Bhuvanagiri
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr.Rambabu Koppineedi, standing
counsel
4
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
W.A.No.46 of 2021
Acharya Nagarjuna University (ANU)
Rep., by its Registrar,
Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District and
another
... Appellants
Versus
Prof. K. VenkataRao,
S/o Sanjeevaiah, aged 59 years,
R/o Flat No.103, Phani Grand Apartment,
S.V. Colony, Main Road,
Gujjanagundla, Guntur-522006
...Respondent
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, Spl.GP
Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Venkateswarlu Posani
Dates of hearing : 10.02.2021, 11.02.2021 & 15.02.2021
Date of pronouncement : 01.04.2021
COMMON JUDGMENT & ORDER
(Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
These appeals are preferred against the common judgment and
order dated 14.02.2020 passed in W.P Nos.3082, 4818, 15161, 20948 of
2019 and 1977 of 2020.
2. Writ Petition Nos.4818, 15161 and 20948 of 2019 were filed by
K. Venkata Rao and Writ Petition Nos.3082 of 2019 and 1977 of 2020 were
filed by Gajula Sarat Chandra Babu and all the writ petitions were allowed
setting aside the orders impugned and granting consequential benefits.
3. W.A.Nos.381, 382, 411, 426 and 46 of 2020 are preferred by
Acharya Nagarjuna University (for short, 'the University') in respect of
5
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
W.P.Nos.3082 of 2019, 4818 of 2019, 1977 of 2020, 20948 of 2019 and
15161 of 2019, respectively.
4. W.A.Nos.30 of 2021 and 35 of 2021 are filed by the State of Andhra
Pradesh in respect of W.P.Nos.4818 of 2019 and 3082 of 2019,
respectively.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have advanced arguments in
W.A.No.382 of 2020 as the learned single Judge had passed the judgment
based on W.P.No.4818 of 2019.
6. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to take note of basic
facts and the nature of relief sought in each of the writ petitions for better
appreciation of the issues involved.
7. In W.P.No.3082 of 2019, the writ petitioner- Gajula Sarat Chandra
Babu called into question a Memorandum dated 07.02.2019, directing him
to retire on 31.05.2019 on attaining the age of 60 years, instead of 62
years, by treating him as non-teaching staff, with a further prayer to allow
him to continue in service upto the age of 62 years. The petitioner was,
at the relevant point of time, holding the post of the Assistant Professor in
Library and Information Science in the University. It is relevant to state that
the post of Documentation officer, which the petitioner was holding, was
re-designated as Assistant Professor in Library and Information Science.
8. In W.P.No.3082 of 2019, an interim order was passed on 01.05.2019
(in I.A.No.1 of 2019) directing the University to continue the writ petitioner
in service with the rider that entitlement of the petitioner for salary would
depend on further orders to be passed, and thereafter, by order dated
24.07.2019, he was allowed to continue in service till the disposal of the
writ petition. While the petitioner was allowed to continue to attend to his
6
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
duties till the third week of December, 2019, he was prevented from
attending to his duties on 19.12.2019. When asked for the reason, he was
served with a proceeding dated 19.12.2019, whereby he was retired and
relieved from the services of the University with immediate effect.
Accordingly, the proceedings dated 19.12.2019 were assailed in
W.P.No.1977 of 2020.
9. In W.P.No.4818 of 2019, the writ petitioner-K. Venkata Rao called
into question the proceedings dated 29.03.2019 directing him to retire on
31.07.2019 on attaining the age of 60 years, instead of 62 years, by
treating him as non-teaching staff, with a further prayer to allow him to
continue in service upto the age of 62 years. At the relevant point of time,
he was holding the post of Professor of Library and Information Science. It
is relevant to state that the post of University Librarian, which the petitioner
was holding, was re-designated as Professor in Library and Information
Science.
10. In W.P.No.4818 of 2019, an interim order was passed on
16.07.2019, suspending the order dated 29.03.2019, and another interim
order was passed on 24.07.2019 extending the earlier order and allowing
him to continue in service till disposal of the writ petition. By an order dated
13.09.2019, while allowing him to continue in service with payment of
salary, the University withheld his administrative, financial and academic
functions as Librarian and entrusted those functions to his next senior most
officer. Another order dated 19.09.2019 was issued appointing Deputy
Librarian as In-charge Librarian of the University and directing the
petitioner to handover administrative and financial powers to the Deputy
Librarian. Challenging the aforesaid two proceedings dated 13.09.2019 and
19.09.2019, W.P.No.15161 of 2019 came to be filed.
7
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
11. W.P.No.20948 of 2019 came to be filed assailing the proceedings
dated 19.12.2019, retiring and relieving the petitioner in W.P.No.4818 of
2019, from the services of the University with immediate effect, while the
interim order in the said W.P.No.4818 of 2019 was subsisting.
12. It will be now appropriate to take note of the case projected, in a
nutshell, in W.P.No.4818 of 2019.
13. While the petitioner in W.P.No.4818 of 2019, namely,
K. Venkata Rao, was working as Assistant Librarian, the Government of
Andhra Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary, issued G.O.Ms.No.35 dated
16.06.2003, re-designating the posts of University Library Professionals
who have been drawing University Grants Commission (UGC) scales, i.e.,
University Librarian, Deputy Librarian, Assistant Librarian and
Documentation Officer, as Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant
Professor in Library and Information Science, respectively. Accordingly, the
Vice Chancellor of the University issued proceedings dated 27.11.2003,
re-designating the writ petitioner as Assistant Professor. Benefit of Career
Advancement Scheme (CAS) was extended to him by the Executive Council
of the University, vide proceedings dated 28.05.2007. He was selected and
appointed as Deputy Librarian on 21.02.2009 and again as University
Librarian on 01.09.2009. The Executive Council (Syndicate) of the
University, in a meeting held on 22.06.2016, resolved to start regular
course in M.L.I.Sc. Two Years (Integrated) from the academic year 2016-17
and consequently, established the Department of Library and Information
Science and he was appointed as Head of the Department (HoD) and since
then, he had started discharging his duties as Professor and HoD.
Subsequently, he was also appointed as Chairman of the Board of Studies
of the Department.
8
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
14. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary,
issued G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 24.12.2014, enhancing the age of
superannuation of regular University Teachers in the State from 60 years to
62 years with effect from 02.06.2014.
15. It is pleaded that having regard to the nature of duties assigned to
the post of University Librarian/Professor, which the petitioner was
performing, he comes under the category of Teacher as defined in Sections
2(22) and 2(23) of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991 (for short,
'the Act'). Though, being a Teacher, he was entitled to continue in service
till completion of 62 years, Memorandum dated 29.03.2019 was issued
retiring him from service with effect from 31.07.2019, on attaining the age
of 60 years.
16. The Learned single Judge, during the course of the judgment, noted
that a submission was advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
University that counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University by
Professor K. Rosayya was not correct. He relied upon the counter-affidavit
filed in W.P.No.20948 of 2019.
17. The learned single Judge, while passing the impugned judgment,
observed that the basis of the claim of the writ petitioner to continue in
service upto the age of 62 years is based on G.O.Ms.No.59 dated
24.12.2014, by which the age of superannuation of regular University
Teachers in the State of Andhra Pradesh was extended to 62 years.
18. The learned single Judge recorded a finding that the petitioner in
W.P.No.4818 of 2019 has been given a structured streamlined instruction
programme for the students of M.L.I.Sc course and was assigned a
particular class. Though the course was under self-financing scheme,
learned single Judge held that it is not material that the course was a
9
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
self-financing course. It is also observed that the petitioner not only guided
the students for the research for the Nagarjuna University but was also
considered as an external faculty for adjudicating Ph.D. thesis of other
Universities. The learned single Judge also observed that the petitioner in
W.P.No.3082 of 2019 was deputed to various parts of the State for
conducting practical examinations to B.L.I.Sc. students.
19. The learned single Judge held as follows:
"This Court is of the opinion that the duties assigned to the
petitioner in this case would definitely entitle him to be called a
"teacher" of the University. Sustained activity is allotted to the
petitioner in teaching. His role in guiding Doctoral students and
the request from other Universities to the petitioners to act as
external examiners make it clear that the persons in the Library
Science Department are treated as "teachers". The time tables
make it clear that they are assigned duties as teachers of Library
Science. Therefore, this Court holds that the various members of
the faculty in the Department of Library and Information
Sciences who are teaching regular classes should be considered
as teachers only. Consequently, they are entitled to be
retired/superannuated only when they attained age of 62 years;
on par with all other teachers. This Court also feels that in view
of the decided case law as applicable to this case; this order
would not amount to an interference in an internal matter of a
University but would be a case of vindication of the petitioners
rights."
xxxxxx
10
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
"Hence, after examining the matter from all the angles, this
Court is of the firm opinion that as the petitioners are assigned
teaching duties in a structured/pre-determined manner and as
they have been consistently teaching the students, they are held
to be teachers as per Section 2(22) and 2(23) of the Act.
Arguments and the submissions of the petitioners are upheld.
Even if they did not actually "teach" the same is immaterial as
per the Division Bench order mentioned above. The available
material and the regulations governing the petitioners make it
clear that the petitioners should be treated as teachers of the
University, as a result of which they are entitled to be retired
only on attaining the age of 62 years and with all the benefits
therefrom."
20. The learned single Judge, thus, on consideration of the arguments
advanced by the parties and taking note of the judgments cited, held that
the available material and the Regulations governing the petitioners make it
clear that the petitioners should be treated as Teachers of the University as
a result of which they are entitled to be retired only on attaining the age of
62 years with all benefits.
21. Mr. Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, learned Additional Advocate
General, has drawn the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.35 dated
16.06.2003, to contend that the decision to adopt uniformity in designations
by re-designating the posts of University Library Professionals, who are
drawing UGC scales, was subject to the condition that there is no financial
commitment on the part of the Government and that apart, it was also
expressly stated therein that though they may be asked to take classes,
they are not regular teaching staff of the Department of Library and
11
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
Information Science and they belong to non-vacation academic staff, and
the import and effect of the G.O.Ms.No.35 was not considered by the
learned single Judge. It is submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.35 dated
16.06.2003 was not assailed at any point of time and, therefore, there
cannot be any doubt that the writ petitioners are not regular teaching staff
of the Department of Library and Information Science.
22. Placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 24.12.2014, it is submitted
that by the said G.O., the Government had decided to enhance the age of
superannuation of regular University Teachers in the State from 60 years to
62 years with effect from 02.06.2014 and when the petitioners, admittedly,
in view of G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 16.06.2003, are not regular teaching staff,
they cannot claim that they should retire at the age of 62 years on par with
the regular University Teachers. He submits that a proceeding dated
28.10.2003 was issued pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 16.06.2003 and
Resolution of the Executive Council dated 17.09.2003, wherein it was stated
in tune with G.O.Ms.No.35, that the duties of Assistant Librarians are
separately identified. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to a
proceeding dated 27.11.2003 issued by the Deputy Registrar-
Administration, of the University, pursuant to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.35
dated 16.06.2003, wherein also, while re-designating the post of Assistant
Librarian as Assistant Professor, it was reiterated that those re-designations
are without any financial commitment and without any change of service
conditions after re-designations. It is submitted that the said proceedings
dated 28.10.2003 and 27.11.2003 were also not challenged before any
forum.
23. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the Ordinance of the
University, which is effective from 27.10.2018, and placing reliance on
12
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
Ordinance No.4 relating to the appointment, powers and duties of
University Librarian, contends that duties of the Librarian do not envisage
any kind of teaching. He relies on a judgment of a learned single Judge of
this Court inW.P.No.21035 of 2002 dated 06.04.2006in the case of
N. Bhaskara Reddy v. Sri Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural
University, Hyderabad and the judgment of a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of M.Sankara Reddy v. Potti Sree Ramulu Telugu
University, reported in LAWS (APH)-2004-11-36.
24. Mr.Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the University, while broadly adopting the arguments of
Mr.Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, refers to Sections 2(22) and 2(23) of the
Act, and contends that while all University Teachers are Teachers, all
Teachers are not University Teachers and that, to be a Teacher of the
University, one has to be appointed by the University to give instruction or
guide research in the University and constituent colleges. Viewed from this
perspective, the writ petitioners are not Teachers of the University, he
submits. Drawing attention of the Court to G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 18.01.2014,
he submits that Dr. K. Venkata Rao was nominated as one of the members
of the Academic Senate of the University as a Librarian and not as a
Professor. He also submits that, however, in the year 2016, by way of
G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 22.02.2016, the Government nominated K. Venkata Rao
to the Executive Council from the Teachers' quota though he was not a
Teacher. He contends that by such mere nomination, he will not become a
Teacher if he is not a Teacher.
25. He referred to a Resolution of the Executive Council meeting held on
22.06.2016, by which it was resolved to start/revive the regular M.L.I.Sc. 2
years (Integrated) course in Library Science subject in the University
13
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
campus on self-finance basis from the academic year 2016-2017. It is
submitted that the same was done on the request of K. Venkata Rao. It is
further submitted that since the course is a self-financing course, it cannot
be equated as regular course of the University and, therefore, anybody
imparting teaching in the said subject, that too, as a Guest Faculty, cannot
be construed to be a regular University Teacher, as Ordinance No.4 of the
Ordinances makes it abundantly clear that the University Librarian is a non-
teaching post. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.831 of 2006 dated 01.12.2014 in the case of Acharya N.G. Ranga
University, rep. by its Registrar, v. E.D. Livingston.
26. Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners, submits that the learned single Judge, on the basis of the
materials on record, came to the conclusion that the writ petitioners were
Teachers within the meaning of Section 2(23) of the Act and no
interference is called for with the aforesaid judgment. He refers to
proceedings dated 12.01.2019 issued by the University to amend the
Regulations to re-designate the University Librarian, Deputy Librarian and
Assistant Librarian to that of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant
Professor in Library and Information Science, respectively, subject to the
conditions as enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 16.06.2003. He relies on
the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.576 of 2015 dated
13.07.2016 in the case of Abdul Hakeem v. State of Telangana,
S.S. Janardhan Rao v. Andhra University, reported in 1998 (6) ALD
480, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam v. S.S. Janardhana Rao
reported in 2002 SCC Online AP 1205 as well as in the case of
P.S.Ramamohana Rao v. A.R. Agricultural University, reported in
AIR 1977 SC 3433. He contends that the decisions relied upon by the
14
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
appellants in N. Bhaskara Reddy (supra), M. Sankara Reddy (supra)
and E.D. Livingston (supra) are clearly distinguishable on facts.
27. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to take note of the
judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the parties.
28. In N. Bhaskara Reddy (supra), the petitioner, who was working as
Assistant Librarian in S.V. Agricultural College at Tirupati, sought for a
direction that he be continued in service till he attains the age of
superannuation of 60 years on par with teachers of Sri Acharya N.G. Ranga
Agricultural University and that his terminal benefits be settled on that
basis. In the aforesaid case, the Court had an occasion to deal with Section
2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963, which defines
'Teacher'. According to the said definition, a Teacher includes Professor,
Reader, Lecturer or other person appointed or recognized by the University
for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research
of extension programmes, and any person declared by the statutes to be a
Teacher. On facts, the Court found that, as an Assistant Librarian, the
petitioner had neither imparted instructions nor had conducted and guided
research or extension programme and therefore, he does not fall within the
definition of Section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act,
1963.
29. In M. Sankara Reddy (supra),a single Bench had occasion to deal
with the age of superannuation of a Librarian working in Sri Potti Sree
Ramulu Telugu University. The learned single Judge held that Rule 3(d) of
Statute 22 and Rule 3(c) of Statute 29 of the University clearly classified
Librarian as a Teacher.
30. In the case of E.D.Livingston (supra), the writ appellate Court had
set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition
15
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
allowing the writ petitioner, namely, E.D. Livingston, who was an Assistant
Librarian, to continue up to 60 years upholding the plea that he was a
Teacher as defined in the statutes. The Division Bench observed that even
if some teaching duties were assigned on certain occasions, the same was
done by the Principal of the college and not as a matter of compliance with
the general circular or Statutes issued by the University. It was held that
classification of an employee of an organization into a particular category
would depend upon the relevant rules as well as the nature of duties that
are assigned to the incumbent in general.
31. In Abdul Hakeem (supra), again, Section 2(n) of the Andhra
Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963, had fallen for consideration
before a Division Bench of this Court. Taking note of the changes that had
taken place from 2009-2010 academic year and the duties assigned, it was
held that they would come within the meaning of teacher as defined by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S Ramamohana Rao v. A.P.
Agricultural University, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 350.
32. In the case of S.S. Janardhan Rao (supra), the writ petitioner, who
was a Librarian of Andhra University, sought for a writ of Mandamus
declaring the age of superannuation of Librarian as 60 years. Amongst
other pleas, it was the contention that the post of Librarian is a teaching
post and, therefore, he must be given the benefit of superannuation age of
60 years. The learned Judge took note of Regulation 34 framed by the
Andhra University, which enjoined upon the University Librarian to perform
certain duties including the one that he shall do such teaching work as may
be assigned to him from time to time. It was held that simply because the
writ petitioner was not assigned the teaching work for various reasons, it
cannot be said that he ceases to be a Teacher, as assigning or not
16
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
assigning the teaching work by the University is immaterial. Accordingly, it
was held that the post of Librarian in the Andhra University falls within the
category of teaching staff. The aforesaid judgment was upheld in Andhra
University, Visakhapatnam (supra).
33. In P.S. RamamohanaRao(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as under:
"....From the aforesaid affidavit, it is clear that a Physical
Director has multifarious duties. He not only arranges game and
sports for the students every evening and looks after the
procurement of sports material and the maintenance of the
grounds but also arranges inter-class and inter-college
tournaments and accompanies the students' team when they go
for the inter-university tournaments. For that purpose it is one of
his important duties to guide them about the rules of the various
games and sports. It is well known that different games and
sports have different rules and practices and unless the students
are guided about the said rules and practices they will not be
able to play the games and participate in the sports in a proper
manner. Further, in our view, it is inherent in the duties of a
Physical Director that he imparts to the students various skills
and techniques of these games and sports. There are a large
number of indoor and outdoor games in which the students have
to be trained. Therefore, he has to teach them several skills and
the techniques of these games apart from the rules applicable to
these games....
.....In our view, the learned Judges did not go into the
meaning of the word "teacher" in the main part of the clause nor
17
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
assessed correctly the effect of the material evidence on record.
The learned Judges observed that assuming Physical Directors
imparted instructions to their students, unless the University
recognised them as teachers they could not claim the benefit of
Section 2(n) of the Act. Obviously the learned Judges were
referring to the last part of Section 2(n) which includes persons
other than those enumerated in the inclusive part if so
recognised by the University. As we have held that the Physical
Directors come within the main part of the definition of
"teacher", it is in our opinion not necessary that they should be
separately recognised as teachers by an order or statute of the
University....
.......We are unable to agree. It may be that the Physical
Director gives his guidance or teaching to the students only in
the evenings after the regular classes are over. It may also be
that the University has not prescribed in writing any theoretical
and practical classes for the students so far as physical education
is concerned. But as pointed by us earlier, among various duties
of the Physical Director, expressly or otherwise, are included the
duty to teach the skills of various games as well as their rules
and practices. The said duties bring him clearly within the main
part of the definition as a `teacher'. We therefore, do not accept
the contention raised in the additional counter-affidavit of the
University."
34. It will also be apposite to consider the case of State of Karnataka
v. C.K. Pattamashetty and another, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 685.
In the aforesaid case, while dealing with the claim of an Assistant Librarian
18
HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
in Bangalore University to treat him as a Lecturer, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the person appointed as visiting professor on honorary
basis, could not claim the financial benefits of the salaried employee of the
University as a Lecturer or other teachers of the University.
35. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to extract relevant portion of
G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 16.06.2003:
"HIGHER EDUCATION (UE) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.35 Dated 16-06-2003
Read the following:
xxxxxx
O R D E R:
xxxxx
2. xxxxx
3. After careful examination of the proposal of the Secretary, A.P. State Council of Higher Education, Government have decided to adopt the uniform of designations by re-designating the posts of the University Library Professionals who are drawing UGC scales i.e. University Librarian, Deputy Librarian, Assistant Librarian and Documentation Officer to that of Professor in Library & Information Science, Associate Professor in Library &Information Science and Assistant Professor in Library & Information Science respectively, subject to the condition that there is no financial commitment on the part of the Government and also with the following conditions:
1. Assistant Librarians working in the Universities possess the same qualification like the Librarians earlier working 19 HCJ & CPK,J W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch in Government Degree Colleges and later designated as Lecturers in Library Science vide G.O.Ms.No.91.
2. The Assistant Librarians have the duties separately identified and as and when necessary they may be asked to teach classes and they are not regular teaching staff of the Department of Library and Information Sciences.
3. The Assistant Librarians are non-vacation academic staff charged with the responsibility of offering academic services to various Departments in the Universities.
4. The Registrars of all Universities in the State are requested to take necessary action in the matter.
5. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance (EBS VII) Department vide their U.O.No.5131/139/EBS VII/03, dt. 05-
03-2003."
36. It would also be relevant to extract the relevant portion of proceedings dated 27.11.2003 issued by the Deputy Registrar, Administration of the University:
"REGISTRAR NU/ESTT/NTS/E.1/Disp Action /2002-04, DATE: 27-11-2003 XXXXX ORDER:
XXXXX 20 HCJ & CPK,J W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch These redesignations are without any financial commitment and without any change of services conditions after redesignations."
37. It would now be appropriate to extract relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 24.12.2014, which is the foundation of the claim of the writ petitioners.
"HIGHER EDUCATION (UE) DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.59 Dated 24-12-2014 Read the following:
xxxxxx O R D E R:
xxxxx
2. xxxxx
3. Government after careful examination of the entire matter hereby enhance the age of Superannuation of regular University Teachers in the State from 60 years to 62 years with effect from 02-06-2014.
4. The Registrars of all the Universities are advised to place the matter before the Executive Councils of the respective Universities and take necessary action in the matter accordingly."
38. Section 2(23) of the Act defines Teachers of the University to mean the Teachers appointed by the University to give instructions or guide research in the University and constituent colleges. The materials on record do not demonstrate that the petitioners had been appointed by the University to give instructions or guide research in the University and constituent colleges. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that they were appointed by the University to guide research in the University and 21 HCJ & CPK,J W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch constituent colleges. If an employee of the University guides research in any other University, the same will not make him a Teacher of the University in which he is employed.
39. G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 16.06.2003 while re-designating the post of Assistant Librarians who were drawing UGC scales, made it explicitly clear that Assistant Librarians are not regular teaching staff of the Department of Library and Information Sciences. It is relevant to note that K. Venkata Rao was holding the post of Assistant Librarian when the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 16.06.2003 was issued. It was also indicated therein that as and when necessary, they may be asked to take classes but Assistant Librarians belong to non-vacation academic staff charged with the responsibility of offering academic services to various Departments in the Universities. It is seen from Ordinance No.4 of the University that duties of Librarian do not envisage any kind of teaching.
40. G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 24.12.2014 used the expression "regular University Teachers" and the petitioners were not regularly appointed as Teachers of the University within the meaning of Section 2(23) of the Act. It will be necessary to examine whether because of introduction of M.L.I.Sc. 2 years (Integrated) course in Library Science, petitioners having taken classes as asserted by them, they can be treated at par with regular University Teachers.
41. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 3 in W.P.No.20948 of 2019 (appellants herein), a reference to which is also made in the judgment of the learned single Judge, it is stated that there was no regular teaching Department of Library and Information Science and only self-financed Department of Library and Information Science was started from the academic year 2017-18. It is further stated that the 22 HCJ & CPK,J W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch petitioner had worked as Guest Faculty outside the duties as Librarian instead of regular faculty in the self-financed Department of Library and Information Science during 2017-18, 2018-19 and part of 2019-20 and had drawn additional salary for working as Guest Faculty. It is also stated that the petitioner continued in the University service on the strength of interim orders as per orders of the Vice Chancellor dated 13.09.2019. At paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated as follows:
"I respectfully submit that after having examined all these material facts, the respondent University has retired the Petitioner from the University service on 19-12-2019. Further, without the sanction of the Finance Department, Government of A.P., the implementation of the order would result in financial irregularity."
42. The learned single Judge though noted that the counsel for the University argued on the basis of the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.20948 of 2019, did not take into consideration the fact that the petitioner K. Venkata Rao was working as Guest Faculty. When the petitioner K. Venkata Rao was working only as a Guest Faculty, it cannot be said that he has to be treated as a Teacher of the University or a regular University Teacher. It is to be remembered that by the G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 24.12.2014, age of superannuation was enhanced to 62 years only in respect of regular University Teachers.
43. In that view of the matter, we are unable to concur with the reasoning assigned by the learned single Judge for holding that the petitioners should be treated as Teachers of the University, and that they are to be superannuated at the age of 62 years. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside.
23
HCJ & CPK,J W.A.No.381 of 2020 & batch
44. Before parting with the records, we would like to dwell upon another aspect, which cannot be brushed aside. Despite the interim orders passed by this Court allowing the petitioners to continue in service, in gross violation of such interim orders, they have been retired during the subsistence of the interim orders. The action of the University is condemnable and such action is antithesis to rule of law. The appellants have taken law into their own hands and such action is not expected, least of all from an academic institution. This Court cannot remain a mute spectator to such flagrant violation of orders of the Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioners were directed to be continued in service by the interim orders, we direct the appellants to pay salary and emoluments to the writ petitioners from the date when such pay and emoluments were stopped till the date of this judgment within a period of two months from today.
45. Resultantly, the Writ Appeals are allowed with the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Nn/IBL/MRR