Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jampana Lakshmi vs A N G Ranga Agricultural University on 18 October, 2024
1
APHC010254692020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NOs. 16753 AND 18579 of 2020
WRIT PETITION NO: 16753 OF 2020
Between:
H Venumadhav and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Angra University and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K K DURGA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA (SC FOR ANGRAU)
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:-
Writ Petition No. 16753 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India "to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to regularize the services of the Petitioners as Programme Assistants Computers Soil Test Lab and Farm Manager with the same benefits on par with others granted vide proceedings No.493/Ser(NT)/2014-11, Dt 31.10.2014 and also vide proceedings No.1353/Ser(T)-II/2019, Dt 20.01.2020 Technical Assistants 2 working in AICRP scheme under ICAR plan has regularized services with a condition that as long as KVK schemes continue Programme Assistants will be working in that scheme, if KVK scheme would be discontinued Petitioners services may also be discontinued violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently till such time continue the Petitioners as Programme Assistants Computers Soil Test Lab and Farm Manager in their respective stations and Award costs and pass such other and further orders".
Writ Petition No. 18579 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India "to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to regularize the services of the Petitioners as Programme Assistants (Computers) and (Lab) with the same benefit on par with others granted vide proceedings No.493/Ser(NT)/2014-11, Dt 31.10.2014 and also vide proceedings No.1353/Ser(T)-II/2019, Dt 20.01.2020 Technical Assistants working in AICRP scheme under ICAR plan has regularized services with a condition that as long as KVK schemes continue Programme Assistants will be working in that scheme, if KVK scheme would be discontinued Petitioners services may also be discontinued violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other and further orders".
2. Heard Mr. Naresh, learned counsel, representing Mr. K.K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Yella Reddy Rajanala, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. These Writ Petitions arise out of the same issue and therefore are being disposed of by a common order.
4. The main grievance of the petitioners in W.P.No.16753 of 2020 is that they have been appointed as a Programme Assistants and Farm 3 Managers working on consolidated contract basis at KVK's under the control of Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, A.P from the respective dates in different Districts having experience more than 4 to 14 years respectively. The said posts were notified by way of advertisement in consultation and concurrence of 1st respondent and interviews conducted by the Selection Committee consisting of four members, which includes respondents 4 to 13 and nominee of Director of Extension of 2nd respondent. The Krishi Vigyan Kendra (in short KVK) was established initially in the year 1974 at Puducherry, thereafter as on today 645 KVK's established in India. KVK scheme is 100% financed by the Central Government and KVK's are sanctioned to Agricultural Universities, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Institutes, related Government Department and N.G.O's.
5. It is further submitted that their appointment letters contained consolidated pay of Rs. 5,500/- per month + HRA and tenure was initially only for a period of 11 months and their appointments were purely on contract basis and the said period is being extended from time to time by giving a small breakup service for few days and fresh contractual appointments were given through various proceedings till date. The pay scales of the petitioners were revised by Board of Management of 1st respondent in accordance with Central Pay Commission, 2006 and they were given revised pay scales also. The Government of A.P issued G.O.Rt.No.2657, dated 26.11.2019 Group of Ministers constituted- formation of working committee to advice the Group of 4 Ministers constituted for the purpose of examine the matter of regularization of services of contract employees working in the Government Department.
6. While the matter stood thus, in the year 2014, Dr. YSR Horticulture University has issued proceedings regarding regularization of temporary services of Programme Assistants vide proceedings dated 31.10.2014 and also 20.01.2020, Technical Assistants working in AICRP scheme under ICAR plan scheme has regularized services with a condition that as long as KVK scheme continues, Programme Assistants will be working in that scheme, if KVK scheme would be discontinued their services may also be stopped. Therefore, the petitioners made representations dated 30.10.2019 etc., to extend the same benefit to them on par with other those who were regularized services with the said condition, which is not considered by the respondents. Hence inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition and requested to allow the same.
7. The precise case of the petitioners in W.P.No.18579 of 2020 is that 1st petitioner was appointed as Programme Assistant (Computers) in respondent organization on 07.11.2008 and she was shifted to post of Programme Assistant (Lab) and her services were continued till date. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Assistant (Audio Visual Aids) in the year 2008 in the 4th respondent organization and now working as Programme Assistant (Computers) since December, 2011 till date. These posts were notified by way of advertisement in the year 2008 by 4th respondent in consultation with the 1st 5 respondent. The petitioners' appointments were done by way of interview on 06.11.2008 with a selection committee consisting of four members, which includes 4th respondent and nominee of Director of Extension of 1st respondent. While the matter stood thus, in the year 2014, Dr. YSR Horticulture University has issued proceedings regarding regularization of temporary services of Programme Assistants vide proceedings dated 31.10.2014 and also 20.01.2020, Technical Assistants working in AICRP scheme under ICAR plan scheme has regularized services with a condition that as long as KVK scheme continues, Programme Assistants will be working in that scheme, if KVK scheme would be discontinued their services may also be stopped. Therefore, the petitioners made representations dated 30.10.2019 etc., to extend the same benefit to them on par with other those who were regularized services with the said condition, which is not considered by the respondents. Hence inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition and requested to allow the same.
8. Per contra, the respondents 1, 2, 4 to 13 have filed counter-affidavit in W.P.No.16753 of 2020 denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the interviews were conducted with a selection committee for selecting the candidates for engaging Programme Assistants purely on temporary basis only not on regular basis after accepting terms and conditions of University that the individual can be terminated by the University at any time without assigning any reason thereof and it is purely temporary on contract basis for 11 months only. It is further contended that 6 G.O.Rt.No.2657, dated 26.11.2019 is pertaining to regularizing the services of contract employees working in the Government Departments, but the said G.O is not applicable in respect of the petitioners as the respondent university has separate Rules and Regulations. The respondent University is no way concerned with Dr. YSR Horticultural University, as it is not precedent to the respondent University to follow the same, since the respondent University has follows the guidelines issued by the ICAR, as it is the basis for appointing/ engaging under KVK schemes. Hence, the question of considering the case of the petitioners to regularize their services on par with Dr. YSR Horticultural University does not arise. It is further contended that the respondent University issued Memo dated 31.03.2021 directed the respondents 4 to 13 to extend the temporary contractual services of Programme Assistants/ petitioners for a period of 11 months with a break of two days of service or until the vacant posts of Programme Assistants were filled up on the basis of co-terminus with the scheme, whichever is earlier and also agreeing on condition, they have no right to claim for regularization of contractual temporary services. Accordingly, the revised pay scales as per 7th Central Pay Commission were given to the petitioners with certain conditions.
9. It is further contended that the Statute 17 of Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University Áct (in short ANGRAU Act) and Statutes issued vide G.O.Ms.No.2081, dated 09.08.1965 of Food and Agriculture Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh states that „the services of a temporary officer who has not been appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in 7 the Act or the Statutes are liable to be terminated any time without notice and without assigning any reasons therefor". Therefore, the petitioners can be terminated at any time as per Statute 17 of ANGRAU Act, but the respondent University is continuing the petitioners on coterminous basis and also paying remuneration enhanced by the University from time to time. It is further contended that the services of the petitioners will automatically be discontinued without any notice on completion of project/ withdrawal of the posts/ abolished or closure of KVK/ regular recruitment process taken up by the respondent University, but as per the Rules and Regulations of the Respondent University, regularization of the petitioners is not possible as it was done by Dr. YSR Horticultural University. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners is not considered by the respondents. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
10. Perused the record.
11. During hearing learned Standing Counsel for the respondents placed on record the Clarification on age of superannuation, promotions, pay and allowances etc., in respect of the KVKs under the administrative control of State Agricultural Universities dated 20.08.2024 issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research addressed to all the Directors, ICAR -ATARIs (Zone I to XI), wherein Clause 5(a) clearly stated that a) All the employees working in any KVK of State Agricultural Universities (SAUs) are temporary/ project- based employees whose services are coterminous with the KVK project. 8 Services of such temporary/ project based employees of KVKs cannot be equated either with services of regular employees of ICAR or regular Teachers/ Assistant Professors/ Associate Professors/ Professors/ employees of SAUs and for same reasons temporary/ project-based employees of KVKs have no right to claim parity either with any regular staff of ICAR or any regular staff of SAU‟s." "(g) All policy related instructions, with respect of any KVK matter, are issued, with the approval of Competent Authority, either by Agricultural Extension Division of ICAR Headquarters or by Law Department of ICAR and no ATARI is authorized to issue any policy related instructions, with respect to any matter pertaining to KVK Scheme."
12. In similar circumstances of this case in nature, one the Research Associate has filed a W.P.No.18092 of 2011 before this Court seeking a direction to continue him as Research Associate in the branch of Fisheries at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Nellore and set aside the notice dated 01.06.2011 of the 4th respondent as illegal and arbitrary. This Court on 29.06.2016, after thorough discussion of catena of decisions of various High Courts and also the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the writ petition holding that the impugned notice issued therein in accordance with the terms of appointment and mere observation that petitioner's performance is not satisfactory cannot and could not be treated as attaching any blemish to the service of the petitioner. The citations relied upon by the petitioner therein are distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Court has satisfied that the appointment of the petitioner is within definite terms and 9 conditions. Further held that the respondents have authority to terminate appointment by following the conditions and no exception can be taken. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that in the light of specific terms and conditions of the University rules, the request made by the petitioners in these writ petitions cannot be considered by the respondents.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the respondents continuously extended the services of Programme Assistants for several years without going for permanent recruitments for past 30 years because, the University cannot engage the posts in regular service. Since, the scheme is introduced by the ICAR is 100% funding agency for providing benefit to the farmers of the country. According to Memorandum of Understanding of ICAR to SAUs and NGOs as and when the scheme is not in existence or shut down, KVKs in all over India will be closed with immediate effect and the ICVAR will take possession of the properties as it is. It is further argued that the petitioners have been working since several years, but surprisingly, in the year 2020 the respondents, to appoint their followers in the places of petitioners without following due procedure, forcing the petitioners to resign from their respective posts. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed these writ petitions and obtained interim order on 18.09.2020.
14. Admittedly, the petitioners are being continued as Programme Assistants in the respondent University since long time and further admitted 10 that the respondent University is continuing the petitioners on coterminous basis and also paying remuneration enhanced by the University from time to time. In the instant case, Circular memo dated 21.08.2023 issued by the respondent University is similar to the prayer made by the petitioners that the services of the petitioners will automatically be discontinued without any notice on completion of project/ withdrawal of the posts/ abolished or closure of KVK/ regular recruitment process taken up by the respondent university and further argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the services of the temporary officer, who has not been appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act or the Statutes are liable to be terminated at any time without any notice as per conditions of the University. As of now, the respondent University has not dispensed any Programme Assistants and all the petitioners are continuing till date.
15. The respondent University is no way concerned with Dr. YSR Horticultural University, as it is not precedent to the respondent University to follow the same, since the respondent University has follows the guidelines issued by the ICAR, as it is the basis for appointing/ engaging under KVK schemes. Hence, the question of considering the case of the petitioners to regularize their services on par with Dr. YSR Horticultural University does not arise as contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
16. No doubt, there may be differences with regard to rules and regulations of each University and hence it can be looked into the procedure 11 while issuing notification as per terms and conditions of the university. In the instant case, a notification was issued and appointed the petitioners by way of interview by four member selection committee, but not the rules adopted by the Dr. YSR Horticultural University. Therefore, the case of the petitioners cannot be considered as per orders of Dr YSR Horticultural University dated 31.10.2014 and 20.01.2020. It is purely discretion of the respondent/ university to continue or discontinue the petitioners.
17. However, the petitioners are being continued since 4 to 14 years respectively in the respondent University and same is undisputed. The respondent University admitted in their counter itself that the petitioners are working under coterminous basis and also paying remuneration enhanced by the University from time to time. Therefore, the petitioners are getting benefits as per enhanced remuneration from the University from time to time and working therein since long time.
18. It is also very clear in the Memorandum of Understanding at (xviii) "In the event of the termination of the scheme, the vehicles, farm machineries and equipments and other articles purchased under the scheme and the buildings acquired/ constructed with the Council‟s assistance shall remain the property of the Council. Immediately in the event of the termination, the KVK shall be obliged to hand over all these movables and immovable properties to the council and the Council shall decide the manner in which these equipments and articles can be utilized/ transferred or disposed of." Therefore, 12 if the project is completed, the properties will be surrendered to the Council, who will look into the same.
19. In view of the aforementioned scenario, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petitions, while directing the respondents/ University shall continue the petitioners in their respective cadres till completion of project, with all emoluments as per respondent/ University norms. It is made clear that if warrants termination of the petitioners, without considering the longstanding position during any recruitment made by the respondent/ University, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law before the appropriate fora. It is left open for the respondent/ University to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services on par with other employees like Dr. Y.S.R. Horticultural University.
20. With the above direction, the both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Dated: 18.10.2024.
KK