Telangana High Court
T.P.Srinivasan vs The Govt Of Ap., Rep.By Its Principal ... on 8 January, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 23782 OF 2011
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Principal of Bhavan's New Science College(Day) on the ground that he is senior most candidate among the eligible candidates.
2. The undisputed facts are that, New Science College, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, was initially established with Science Faculty in July 1956 under the Management of Nutan Vidya Samithi. In 1960, permission was accorded to start PUC Humanities in the evening session. Thus, an Evening College was started with B.A. and B.Com courses. Both the Day and Evening Colleges are affiliated to Osmania University. The National Accreditation and Assessment Council (NAAC) also recognized them as two separate colleges and subsequently, Post-Graduation Courses were also introduced.
The method of recruitment, qualifications, etcetera of different faculties are governed by G.O.Ms. No. 14, Higher Education (UE II) Department, dated 20.02.2010. Though initially, Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 461, dated 09.08.2002 2 merging both Day and Evening Colleges, the Government, taking into consideration various factors including the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11029 of 2003, dated 17.06.2003, issued G.O. Ms. No. 547, dated 27.06.2006 keeping G.O.Ms. No. 461 in abeyance. Now the fact remains that both Day and Evening colleges are different with separate sanctities and inter se seniority is also a distinct one.
G.O.Ms. No. 14, dated 20.02.2010 inter alia, prescribes qualifications for filling up the post of Principal by promotion as below:
"4.2.0 PRINCIPAL i. A Master's Degree with at least 55% of the marks or a relevant grade regarded as equivalent to 55% wherever grading system is followed by a recognize University.
ii. Ph.D qualification in concerned/allied/relevant discipline with evidence of published work and research guidance.
iii. Associate Professor/Professor with a total experience of 15 years of teaching/research/administration in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of higher education.
iv. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based on Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) for Professors as developed by UGC in these Regulations."
It is also relevant to note that the post of Principal is a selection post being head of the College. The case of petitioner is that the 4th respondent Mr. Amithava Chowdary who was impleaded by order dated 19.06.2012, is not possessing Ph. D. qualification; 3 he is a Lecturer in Statistics, which post is not available in the 3rd respondent college due to abolition of that subject during 1990, hence he is working on deputation in Government Women's College, Begumpet, Hyderabad for the last more than 15 years. Though he is not strictly qualified for promotion as Principal, he was promoted as such in the 3rd respondent College. Petitioner claims that he, being the senior-most among the qualified, has to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal. He therefore, prays for a direction to the 3rd respondent.
3. A counter-affidavit on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 was filed narrating the rule position. It is stated that the 4th respondent was appointed as Lecturer in Statistics on 18.09.1976 and admitted to Grant-in-Aid with effect from 01.07.1977, whereas petitioner was appointed on 12.08.1993, thus the 4th respondent is senior to petitioner However, these respondents have neither admitted nor denied the contention of petitioner that Lecturer in Statistics post is not available in the 3rd respondent College due to abolition of that subject during 1990, hence he is working on deputation in Government Women's College, Begumpet, Hyderabad for the last more than 15 years. This contention is skipped without being answered. While admitting the fact that as per G.O.Ms. No. 14 HE(UE II) 4 Department, dated 20.02.2010, possession of Ph.D. qualification is a must for being considered for appointment as Principal. It is stated that G.O.Ms. No. 47, dated 14.05.2007 was issued wherein in the Note it is stated: "(a) Persons who were appointed as Lecturers on or before 01.01.1986 are exempted from possessing the qualification at item (ii)" of qualifications mentioned in G.O.Ms. No. 14 ie. possessing Ph.D. qualification. It is stated that since the 4th respondent was appointed prior to 01.01.986, though he is not possessing Ph.D. qualification, he was considered for promotion. It is further stated that as per G.O.Ms. No. 127, dated 07.06.1993, a common seniority was drawn of lecturers working in day and evening Colleges. No much stress need to be put in dealing with this contention of common seniority, since this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 11029 of 2003 by its order dated 17.06.2003 observed that day and evening Colleges of the 3rd respondent are separate units.
4. The 3rd respondent College filed counter almost in similar lines to that of Respondents 1 and 2.
5. The 4th respondent filed his counter mainly contending that since possessing of Ph.D. qualification for promotion to the post of Principal is exempted by G.O.Ms. 5 No.47, dated 14.05.2007, his promotion as Principal cannot be found fault with.
6. Heard Sri S. Gopal Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Education on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, Sri Koka Satyanarayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3 and Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.4.
7. The question whether day and evening colleges form a single unit or different units for the purpose of drawing inter se seniority of Lecturers, is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11029 of 2003, dated 17.06.2003.
8. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that possessing Ph.D. qualification is a must as per G.O.Ms. No. 14, Higher Education (U.E.II) Department, dated 29.02.2010. However, GO. Ms. No. 47, Higher Education (CE.I-1) Department dated 14.05.2007 prescribes 'persons who were appointed as Lecturers on or before 01.01 1986 were exempted from possessing the qualification of Ph.D'. Invoking this exemption clause, the 4th respondent, though is not possessing Ph.D., was promoted as Principal. Undoubtedly, the post of Principal is a selection post, for which merit and ability carries more weight than seniority. Petitioner possesses Ph.D. 6 qualification whereas the 4th respondent does not possess Ph.D. qualification. In normal sense, a person with Ph.D. qualification ie. Doctorate will be considered as more meritorious. Possessing Ph.D. qualification is must at the first instance, however, it can be exempted in view of later G.O. It is a settled principle that if a fully-qualified person is available, it is not just and proper to consider the unqualified person by invoking the exemption clause.
9. Further, it is the contention of petitioner, which is not rebutted by any of the respondents, that the 4th respondent was appointed as Lecturer in Statistics, which post was later abolished, hence he is working on deputation in some other college. However, the authorities have ignored this fact while considering the 4th respondent to the post of Principal. Needless to say that a Lecturer who is working in the same college can administer the affairs of the college as a Principal than the person who is virtually working in some other college if promoted as Principal. Further, petitioner's date of birth is 27.10.1954 whereas that of the 4th respondent is 15.12.1954. Petitioner is elder in age to the 4th respondent and will retire prior to him on attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, considering the candidature of the 4th respondent to the post of 7 Principal will dent the chances of petitioner for getting promotion as Principal.
10. Be that as it may, now petitioner and the 4th respondent retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, keeping all these things in view, the respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal, notionally, from the date on which the 4th respondent was promoted.
11. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 08th January 2024 ksld