Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 1102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
B. Chandra Kumar, J.
Boda Suresh Babu - Appellants
Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
W.P. No. 23567 of 2001 and C.C. No. 48 of 2014
Decided On: 09.04.2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S. Sreeramachandra Murthy
For Respondents/Defendant: G.P., S. Rajan and P.B. Vijaya Kumar
A person who has been working in a sanctioned post for a decade and is qualified for the post is entitled to be absorbed in the backlog vacancy against which he has been working.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 14, 15, 16, 21, 41, 46 - APPOINTMENT OF LECTURER IN COMMERCE - S.C. BACKLOG VACANCY - PETITIONER WORKING AGAINST THE VACANCY SINCE 2000 - SELECTION OF ANOTHER CANDIDATE - CHALLENGE - COURT DIRECTS ABSORPTION OF PETITIONER IN THE BACKLOG VACANCY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community, was appointed as a Part-Time Lecturer in Commerce in the third respondent college in August 2000. He continued to work in that capacity until the college issued a notification in 2002 inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in Commerce under the SC category. The petitioner applied and was placed at Serial No. 14 in the order of merit. However, another candidate was selected for the post. The petitioner challenged the selection, and the court granted interim orders allowing him to continue in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been working in the sanctioned post of SC category since August 2000 and that he had been continuing in service by virtue of the interim orders passed by the court. The court also noted that the petitioner had obtained a Ph.D. degree and that he was qualified for the post of Lecturer in Commerce.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be absorbed in the SC backlog vacancy against which he had been working since 2000. 2. Whether the selection of another candidate for the post of Lecturer in Commerce was illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to be absorbed in the SC backlog vacancy against which he had been working since 2000. The court reasoned that the petitioner had been working in the post for a decade and that he had been continuing in service by virtue of the interim orders passed by the court. The court also noted that the petitioner was qualified for the post of Lecturer in Commerce. The court further held that the selection of another candidate for the post of Lecturer in Commerce was illegal, as the petitioner had been working in the post for a decade and was qualified for the post.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and absorb him in the SC backlog vacancy within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
B. Chandra Kumar, J.
1. W.P. No. 23567 of 2001 has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the notification dated 22.02.2002 issued by the third respondent without any consideration of the in-service candidates and the selection of the fourth respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and for a direction to the consider the case of the petitioner herein for appointment in the aided vacancy in the third respondent college.
2. The petitioner's specific case is that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community (SC-C). HE passed B.Com., in the year 1989-90 and M.Com in the year 1992-93 an also a computer course Data Pro Sleep 2 in the year 2001. It appears that he has also acquired Ph.D. qualification. Previously he was appointed as a lecturer in Priyardarshini College from July 1997 to July 2000. Subsequently, he was appointed as Part-Time Lecturer in Commerce in the third respondent college at Visakhapatnam. This institution is said to be a reputed institution in which several statesmen seems to have studied. It appears that the principal and management of the third respondent college have certified that the petitioner has been working as lecturer in commerce against the aided vacancy since August, 2000 and his teaching has been appreciated by the students and the management. The petitioner has also obtained M.Phil degree in commerce from Madhurai Kamaraj University and he had also obtained Ph.D. in H.R.M. in the faculty of Commerce and Management from Acharya Nagarjuna University.
3. While so, the third respondent college issued notification dated 07.03.2001 inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the vacant posts, i.e., one post of lecturer in commerce under S.C. category. There is a specific note in the said notification that preference will be given to the internal candidates in the college while making selections and to the candidates possessing M.Phil. and Ph.D. and computer knowledge. It appears that no selections have been made as per the said notification dated 07.03.2001. Subsequently, the third respondent college issued another notification dated 16.08.2001. However, there is no mention about the internal candidates in that notification and however, no selections have been made as per the second notification also. Subsequently, the third respondent college issued third notification dated 30.08.2001 notifying 3 lecturer posts in commerce subject, i.e., 2 posts for SC-B and one post for SC-C categories. No recruitment was done as per said notification also. Again the third respondent college issued another notification on 23.02.2002 calling applications for one post of lecturer in commerce. It appears that in pursuance of the latest notification, interviews were conducted in August, 2002 and the fourth respondent was selected.
4. Then, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the said notification and selection of the fourth respondent. This Court, by order dated 16.11.2001, granted interim directions to continue the petitioner till regularly selected candidates are posted. However, it was also observed that the said selection, in pursuance of the interviews, shall be subject to the final result of the writ petition. However, by order dated 22.07.2002, it was clarified that the petitioner shall be continued in service.
5. Now, it is not in dispute that by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has been continuing in service. Though the appointment of the fourth respondent is challenged and certain allegations have been made against him that he was debarred from certain examinations, sine it is submitted that there is one more vacancy of the post of lecture in commerce in the third respondent college to be filled up amongst the S.C. candidates, it is not necessary to go into the allegations made against the fourth respondent in this writ petition. Moreover, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent in
