Back
2004(8) Supreme 206
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan and Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, JJ.
R. Sulochana Devi -Appellant
versus
D.M. Sujatha & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6478-6479 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2008-2009 of 2004)
Decided on 4-10-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Advocate, G. Ramakrishna Prasad and Wasay Khan, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, Ms. M. Sarada, Ms. P. Mahalakshimi, G. Balaji, Raj Kumar Mehta, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, John Mathew, Advocates.
Held : The Division Bench ought not to have interfered with the discretionary power that is vested with the Management to chose the principal of its choice. It is settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that Courts shall be loathe in interfering with the choice of the Management in the selection of the Principal candidate with reference to the educational institutions under the Management of the minority institutions. As rightly contended by Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, the learned Judges of the Division Bench is not correct in giving so much sanctity for the opinion dated 15.2.2000 of RJD where it is a violation for non-adherence to the principles of natural justice. As already noticed, there is abundant material and evidence produced by the appellant to show that she is a Lecturer w.e.f. 01.08.1969 and the Division Bench is wrong in considering only audit reports to hold that she is a Lecturer only w.e.f. 01.04.1976. The Division Bench could have avoided in taking such a hypertechnical view. (Para 25)
The appellant had been deprived of her legal entitlement as the Principal of the College by the Management at the first instance in order to favour Mr. P. Andrew and accommodate him. Now, even after Mr. P. Andrew s retirement, the appellant was Principal for only a short time basing on the single Judge s judgment. However, by virtue of the order passed by the Division Bench, the Management of the College had appointed the first respondent as Principal. In our opinion, the order passed by the Division Bench is not correct and is, therefore, liable to be set aside and accordingly we do so and restore the order passed by the learned single Judge. We were told that the appellant herein has left only about one and a half years of service before her superannuation whereas the first respondent will have some months thereafter after the appellant s superannuation. We, therefore, hold that the first respondent is not entitled to hold the post of Principal in view of our present judgment. The appellant admittedly being senior to the first respondent is entitled to hold the post of Principal of the College in question till her date of retirement. We, therefore, direct the respondents herein, namely, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Guntur and the Management of the College, namely, Andhra Christian College represented by its Correspondent to immediately place her as the Principal of the Andhra Christian College with immediate effect and at any rate not later than two weeks from today. (Paras 26 & 27)
JUDGMENT
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.-Leave granted.
These two appeals are directed against the common judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal Nos. 2078-2079 of 2003 dated 23.12.2003. Writ Appeal 2078 of 2003 was filed by Smt. D.M. Sujatha, first respondent herein, against the order in Writ Petition No. 4279 of 2003 dated 20.11.2003. Writ Appeal No. 2079 of 2003 was filed by the first respondent herein against the order in Writ Petition No. 6362 of 2003 dated 20.11.2003. Both the appeals were heard together by the Division Bench of the High Court which ultimately allowed both the writ appeals filed by the first respondent herein and dismissed another Writ Petition No. 4279 of 2003 as infructuous.
2. For proper appreciation of the controversy involved in the matter, it is necessary to state the few facts in brief:
The appellant-Smt. R. Sulochana Devi joined the Andhra Christian College as Demonstrator in the Department of Chemistry on 1.8.1968. She was promoted as Lecturer in an aided post on 1.8.1969 and her promotion was confirmed from the date of appointment, i.e., with effect from 1.8.1969. She was given the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme of 16 years and 21 years. She was also appointed as Vice Principal and Associate Principal and also admitted to grant in aid. The respondent-College appointed respondent No.1, Smt. D.M. Sujatha, as Lecturer in English w.e.f. 30.8.1969 and the Board of Education of the respondent-College approved the promotion of the appellant as Lecturer as also the appointment of respondent No.1 as Lecturer from the respective dates of their appointment. On 1.5.1972, Smt. D.M. Sujatha, respondent No.1, was reverted to the post of Junior Lecturer and worked in the same post for about four years up to 31.8.1974. She was again re-designated as a Lecturer in English only on 1.7.1976. By proceedings dated 11.12.1975, the Director of Higher Education directed the Director that respondent No.1 be treated as Lecturer w.e.f. 30.8.1969 by extending general protection. The Director of Higher Education by the proceedings dated 11.12.1975 issued directions for the purpose of giving general protection to Lecturers/Junior Lecturers working in various institutions to be treated as Lecturers for the purpose of service and seniority from their respective dates of appointment as Lecturer/Junior Lecturer, if they are appointed in the grant-in-aid post prior to 1.5.1971. In the seniority, the appellant was placed at S.No. 20 and respondent No.1 was placed at S.No. 23. The appellant was promoted as Vice-Principal of the College by proceedings of the Manager of the Management.
3. One, Mr. P. Andrew was appointed as a Lecturer on 28.6.1969. The Management wanted to favour Mr. Andrew by appointing him as a Principal by superseding the appellant herein and in order to achieve this object, the Management of the College had approached the then Regional Joint Director (for short "the RJD") with a query to decide the inter se seniority between Mr. P. Andrew and the appellant-Smt. Sulochana Devi. According to the appellant, all this was behind the back of her. The RJD, without following the principles of natural justice had given an opinion by saying that Mr. P. Andrew is senior to the appellant and that the amount to be paid to the appellant as salary in excess should be recovered. The opinion was also given on the basis that in the audit report, the appellant s promotion was not recorded and was not approved by the Department of Higher Education as per the audit report and she was only admitted as Junior Lecturer/Demonstrator in the Audit Report for the years 1973-1976 and that she was allowed only one increment treating her as Demonstrator. According to the appellant, it was a pre-determined order passed by the RJD.
4. The Management of the College had resolved to promote Mr. P. Andrew as Principal pursuant to the opinion rendered by the RJD for Collegiate Education when he is senior to the appellant and Mr. P.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
