Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
GODA RAGHURAM, J.
Dr. B.Krishna Reddy s/o late B. Rami Reddy, Research Associate, Department of Anthropology — Appellant
Vs.
Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati represented by its Registrar — Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6852 of 1997
Decided on : 23-07-2008
Constitution of India Articles 15 and 16 – Universities Act, 1991 – Notices have been served on respondent Nos. 6, 11 and 13 also as per the record – No counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Reddy Advocate has filed for respondent No.15 but no counter has been filed petitioner sought to implead as party respondent Nos. 14 and 15 to writ petition alleging that these respondents were subsequently appointed, pursuant to selection consequent on advertisement illegally without notification for recruitment and in violation of norms filed another application for amending relief in writ petition to seek invalidation of appointments of respondents 14 and 15 – As per court record learned counsel for petitioner was permitted to take out notices on these proposed respondents by registered post acknowledgment due and to file proof of service into court respondents have been served and have also appeared through counsel in proceedings respondent has also filed a counter – In circumstances are formally ordered – Held, University it is apparent that University does not follow any structured pattern either in recruitment or in continuing employees in University service. Some of the respondents are seen to have been appointed to temporary posts to be met out of the self- generated funds and have been later accommodated in regular posts in the University as in the case of 12th respondent who was appointed as a Project Leader in EDC and is now serving as an Assistant Professor in MBA and against post of Professor in MBA with salary paid out of block grant – Since initial appointments of all respondents 4 to 15 are pursuant to the notification for temporary posts and they are being continued indefinitely on temporary tenure since 1997 University is seen to have no justification for such indefinite continuance of temporary posts or for accommodating them in regular posts latter, particularly since all the appointments made pursuant to the impugned notification are invalid for the reasons already recorded supra. whether the appointments of the party-respondents made pursuant to the recruitments consequent on the impugned notification are being continued from 1997 till date and on what basis and what is the current status of these appointees – Respondents 4 to 15, University in its counter affidavit has stated that respondents 4 to 15 are all continuing in service expenditure towards salaries of Teachers in Department of Bio-Technology are being met out of self-generated funds that who was appointed as Project Leader in EDC is presently working as Assistant Professor in MBA and his salary is being met from block grant of University as per orders of State Government against post of Professor in MBA and that salary of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer and one Coordinating Officer are also being met from block grant of University – Writ petition is allowed
Heard Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the 3rd respondent. Sri O.Manohar Reddy for the 4th respondent and Smt.G.Jhansi for respondent Nos.5, 7, 8 to 10, 12 and 14 have appeared and put forth their respective contentions on behalf of these respondents. Notices have been served on respondent Nos. 6, 11 and 13 also as per the record. No counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent No.4, 6, 11 and 13. Sri B.Narayana Reddy, Advocate has filed vakalat on 28-04-1998 for respondent No.15 but no counter has been filed.
2. In WPMP NO.6822 of 1998, the petitioner sought to implead Dr. Bhupathi Naidu and Smt. T. Vijaya as party respondent Nos. 14 and 15 to the writ petition, alleging that these respondents were subsequently appointed, pursuant to the selection consequent on the advertisement dated 20.11.1996, illegally without notification for recruitment and in violation of the norms. He filed another application i.e. WPMP No.6823 of 1998 for amending the relief in the writ petition to seek invalidation of the appointments of respondents 14 and 15. As per the court record, on 5.3.1998 the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out notices on these proposed respondents by registered post, acknowledgment due and to file proof of service into the court (in WPMP Nos. 6823 and 6822 of 1998). These respondents have been served and have also appeared through counsel in the proceedings. The 14th respondent has also filed a counter. In the circumstances WPMP Nos. 6822 and 6823 of 1998 are formally ordered.
3. The petitioner assails the conduct of the 1st respondent-University in issuing and acting upon an Advertisement Nos. E II (2)/1996 (Temporary) dated 20.11.1996 and E.II (2)/ADVT/IASE-CSS/97- (1) dated 22.2.1997, as illegal and arbitrary and seeks a declaration that the appointment of the respondents 4 to 15 is illegal and void. At the hearing of the writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no appointments were made, pursuant to the 2nd advertisement dated 22.2.1997 and that in respect of the advertisement dated 20.11.1996, the respondents 4 to 13 and some others (respondents 14 & 15), were appointed. The challenge is thus confined to the appointments of respondents 4 to 15.
4. Against the advertisement, selection and appointment process followed by the 1st respondent-University, the petitioner has a catalogue of grievances. The 1st respondent has, in defence to the writ petition and the reliefs claimed therein, contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to claim reliefs in the writ petition. Therefore a few facts relating to the petitioner must also be recorded.
5. The petitioner has a master's degree in Sociology and a doctoral qualification in Social Anthropology. He claims impressive academic achievements, including research associateship granted by the UGC, on the basis of a National level selection. He has eight years of post-doctoral research experience in the department of Anthropology in the 1st respondent-University's College of Arts and Sciences. In response to the advertisement dated 20.11.1996, he applied for the posts of Project Leader and of Senior Research Assistant, in the Entrepreneurship Development Cell in SVU College of Engineering, Tirupati. He pleads that though eligible for both posts, he was denied a call letter as regards the post of Project Leader and was called only for the post of Senior Research Assistant. The petitioner however did not appear for interview for the post of Senior Research Assistant apprehending that would disentitle him to challenge the selection process, on a plea that he had acquiesced or waived threshold challenge to the selection process by appearing at the selection.
6. The writ petition is filed in March 1997. According to the pet
gpt-4
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
