Telangana High Court
P.V.B.Sanjeeva Rao vs Govarnment Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 June, 2018
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.15756 OF 2000
ORDER:
The petitioner, who is working as lecturer in Telugu in the 4th respondent-College, filed this Writ Petition seeking regularization of his services as lecturer in Telugu in the 4th respondent-College in the existing aided vacancy or in the alternative to direct the respondents to create/grant new aided vacancy of lecturer in Telugu in the 4th respondent-College in view of the work load and with all consequential benefits.
The case of the petitioner is that he is qualified for the post of lecturer in Telugu as he passed M.A. (Telugu) Post Graduation in the year 1994 and cleared NET examination. In pursuance to the advertisement given by the 4th respondent-College on 31.07.1994, the petitioner applied for the post of lecturer in Telugu. He was interviewed by the Selection Committee and was selected and appointed as lecturer in Telugu on 05.08.1994. While the petitioner was working as lecturer in Telugu, one Sri S.V.Raghavender Rao who was working in aided post of lecturer in Telugu was retired on 29.02.1999 and later Sri K.Sheshaiah Sastry, lecturer in Telugu, also retired on 30.06.2000. Ever since the retirement of Sri S.V.Raghavender Rao, the petitioner was attending the duties of lecturer in Telugu aided posts and has been functioning as such. While so, one Sri B.S.Bhaskar Kumar was posted in the 4th respondent-College as lecturer in Telugu in one of the aided vacancies arose on the retirement of above-said two lecturers. Petitioner made several representations to the respondents, but however respondents are filling up the available 2 aided posts as per their whims and fancies and by relaxing the conditions stipulated in various Government Orders issued from time to time. The private management of the aided institutions had resorted to filling up the vacant post arising on the retirement of the incumbent lecturers by recommending their candidates for absorption. As per the Government Orders issued for regularization of the services of the part time lecturers, the lecturers who were working in unaided posts were absorbed in the existing aided vacant posts. As such, G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 was issued with regard to regularization of the services of the part time lecturers and the part time junior lecturers working in Private Aided Degree/Junior Colleges who fulfil the conditions stipulated therein. In the said G.O., reference was also made with regard to G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.221 dated 20.06.1995 along with other Government Orders. Para 9 (5) G.O.Ms.No.328 prescribes that only those who have put in a service of three academic years as on 30.07.1991 or five academic years as on 25.11.1993 are eligible for regularization. The prescribed cut off date 30.07.1991 was held to be bad by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In spite of the same, the Government had not taken any steps to amend the said Government Orders issued for regularization of the persons who are working temporarily. However, the respondent-Government had issued several proceedings as per the Court Orders absorbing the part time lecturers in the aided posts on permanent basis by relaxing the conditions of the G.Os., even in some case without any orders of the Court.
3
It is further stated that the respondents regularized the services of the temporary lecturers as stated above by relaxing the eligibility criteria, but the respondents in spite of several representations had not taken any decision on the representations of the petitioner for regularization and absorption in the aided vacancy in which the petitioner has been regularly working as a lecturer in Telugu and still continuing as such. Further, he has been paid meagre wages whereas the regular lecturers and the lecturers working in the aided vacancies are getting higher salaries, which is in violation of Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. Further, petitioner is working since 1992 i.e. for 26 years and now he is aged 48 years; by virtue of the interim direction of this Court he is continuing as lecturer in Telugu in the 4th respondent-College in the aided vacancy. The respondents are resorting to regularize the services of the temporary lecturers according to their whims and fancies ignoring the Government Orders issued in respect of regularization of services and bringing the persons from other college against the aided vacancy available in the 4th respondent-College as was done in earlier occasion in case of one Mr.Ch.Bhaskar Kumar, who was brought from outside and posted against one of the vacancies arisen in the 4th respondent-College, vide proceeding dated 04.08.2000. The inaction of the respondents in considering the petitioner's candidature for absorption against the existing aided vacancy of lecturer in Telugu in the 4th respondent-College as per Government Orders is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4
The first and second respondents filed counter stating that the Government issued orders in Memo No.1458/CE.II-1/91-1 dated 11.07.1991 directing the Managements to consider part time lecturers who worked during the period 1989-90, 1990-91 for regularization and not appoint any fresher as part time lecturer. During the year 1984, instructions were issued to all Managements not to recruit regular lecturers due to impending formation of A.P. College Services Commission. By Act 30, 1985, A.P. College Services Commission was formed and batch of recruitments took place. Thereafter, due to ban imposed on regular recruitments, the Managements resorted to engage lecturers on part time basis. The government issued G.O.Ms.No.328 Education dated 15.10.1997 to regularize the services of the part time lecturers with certain guidelines, which are as follows: (1) Must put in a service of 3 academic years as on 30.07.1991 and 5 academic years as on 25.11.1993 and should be in service as on the date of issue of G.O. i.e. 15.10.1997; (2) Must put in 360 working days as on 30.07.1991 and 600 working days as on 25.11.1993; (3) There must be an aided vacant post and (4) The surplus Lecturer if any working in the subject should be adjusted and then only the Part Time Lecturer should be considered if there is a aided vacancy.
The petitioner was appointed during the year 1994 and thus he is not eligible for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997. Further, the petitioner can not claim regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.226 Education dated 20.06.1995 as the same pertains to regularization of part time lecturers working in Government Colleges. The Government had issued separate orders 5 vide G.O.Ms.No.328 Education dated 15.10.1997 in respect of the part time lecturers working in Private Aided Colleges. The petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 and he was also not recruited as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10.01.1992.
Respondent-Government also filed an additional counter along with additional affidavit stating that in G.O.Rt.No.890 Education dated 02.08.1996 the Government issued guidelines for adjustment of surplus lecturers in private aided colleges to needy colleges prescribing that 'the surplus posts which were identified in aided colleges shall be transferred to needy colleges in the same zone, along with personnel, if any' and 'if there are no needy aided college in the same zone, the surplus lecturers shall be adjusted in the aided colleges in other zones'. Accordingly, the Government had directed the Commissioner of College Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide G.O.Rt.No.962 Education (CE.II-1) Department dated 10.06.1997 to transfer the excess lecturers working in Private Aided Colleges to the needy Private Aided and Government Colleges as per the conditions prescribed in the said G.O. When the temporary lecturers approached the Andhra Pradesh Human Rights Commission, the Commission in HRC No.1056/2011 dated 03.05.2011 directed the Government to keep the Rationalization Scheme under abeyance till the representations of the petitioners therein are considered for regularization. Thereafter also, the respondents considered regularization of the lecturers, who are similarly situated to that of the petitioners, and regularized their services by relaxing several conditions stipulated in the Government Orders issued for regularization whereas the 6 petitioner's case was not considered for regularization in spite of several representations.
Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that in spite of the petitioner has put in fairly long length of unblemished services in the 4th respondent-College as a Lecturer in Telugu and in spite of several representations, his case was not considered for absorption though a vacant aided post of Lecturer in Telugu is available in the 4th respondent-College. The respondents have regularized the services of the similarly situated lecturers by relaxing the stipulated conditions in Governments Orders, which can be seen from proceedings in R.C.No.5894-PC1-4/96-1 dated 19.03.1998, RC.No.5894/PC1-4/96-2 dated 19.03.1998 and Rc.No.Nil/Admn.III-5/99-3 dated 04.08.2000 and G.O.Rt.No.160 Higher Education (CE.II.2) Department dated 16.02.2001, G.O.Rt.No.525 Higher Education (CE.II.2) Department dated 17.07.2001, G.O.Rt.No.162 Higher Education (CE.II.1) Department dated 02.03.2002, G.O.Rt.No.30 Higher Education (CE.II.1) Department dated 19.01.2002 and G.O.Rt.No.155 Higher Education (CE.II.1) Department dated 27.02.2002. The action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is entitled to be regularized against the existing aided vacancy arose on 29.02.1999 and 30.06.2000 in the 4th respondent-College, against which the petitioner has been working since then.
The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent-College would contend that the petitioner's services are not regularized against the existing aided vacancy as lecturer in 7 Telugu as he has not fulfilled the eligibility conditions stipulated in various Government Orders required for regularization of services of the part time lecturers and lecturers working in un-aided vacancies to be absorbed in the aided vacancies and further the petitioner has not put in required length of three years of service as on 30.07.1991 and 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993 and continuing in service as on 15.10.1997. He was recruited contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.12 Education dated 10.01.1992. The Government had issued various Government Orders regularizing the services of the similarly situated lecturers to that of the petitioner as per the orders of this Court by relaxing the conditions of the Government Orders. Hence, the petitioner's services could not be regularized and as per the interim direction of this Court petitioner is continued as a lecturer in the 4th respondent-College against aided vacancy. Due to subsequent Rationalization Scheme for absorption and adjustment of the services of the lecturers working in various Government and Aided Colleges, his case is not taken up for regularization.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in considered view of this Court, the petitioner was appointed on 31.07.1994 as a lecturer in Telugu in the 4th respondent-College in pursuance to the advertisement and selection by the Selection Committee. In spite of the two aided vacancies arose on the retirement of the existing lecturers in Telugu department, the petitioner's services were not regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 and subsequent Government Orders by relaxing the conditions as was extended to the similarly situated persons. It is also seen that an outsider Sri V.S.Bhaskar Kumar was brought from another college 8 and was posted in one of the aided vacancies arose in the 4th respondent-College overlooking petitioner's claim, which is illegal and arbitrary. The contention of the respondent- Government that the petitioner was engaged contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10.01.1992 and that he has not fulfilled the conditions of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 and 226 dated 20.06.1995 could not be countenanced when the respondent-Government have regularized the services of the lecturers similarly situated to that of the petitioner by issuing various proceedings by relaxing the several conditions, but however not considered the case of the petitioner. He has not paid the salary on par with the regular lecturers in Telugu working in the 4th respondent-College, which amounts to discrimination and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has fairly put in 20 long years of service without any blemish in the 4th respondent- College and eligible to be appointed as a lecturer in the 4th respondent-College. Hence, this Court is of the view that the respondent-Government ought to have considered the petitioner's case for regularization of his services as a lecturer in Telugu against the aided vacancy available in the 4th respondent-College as he has been continuing in the said aided vacancy.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as lecturer in Telugu in the existing aided vacancy of lecturer in Telugu available in the 4th respondent-College as per G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 and other subsequent Government Orders holding the field. The respondents are 9 directed to continue the petitioner in the existing aided vacancy in the 4th respondent-College pending regularization of the petitioner's services as a lecturer in Telugu and the said exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ (M.GANGA RAO, J) 29th June, 2018 sur