Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
Acharya Nagarjuna University (ANU) and Ors – Appellant
Versus
Gajula Sarat Chandra Babu, S/o G. Veera Sekhara Rao and Ors – Respondent
W.A.Nos.381, 382, 411, 426 of 2020; 30, 35 and 46 of 2021
Decided On : 01-04-2021
Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991 0 Sections 2(22) and 2(23) -Appointment as Deputy Librarian - Memorandum directing him to retire attaining age instead by treating him as non-teaching staff with a further prayer to allow him to continue in service upto petitioner was at relevant point of time holding post of Assistant Professor in Library and Information Science in University–
Finding of the Court:
University argued on basis of counter-affidavit filed did not take into consideration that petitioner was working as Guest Faculty - When petitioner was working only as a Guest Faculty it cannot be said that he has to be treated as a Teacher of University or a regular University Teacher Court allowing petitioners to continue in service in gross violation of such interim orders they have been retired during subsistence of interim orders action of University is condemnable and such action is antithesis to rule of law - Appellants have taken law into their own hands and such action is not expected least of all from an academic institution. This Court cannot remain a mute spectator to such flagrant violation of orders of Court petitioners were directed to be continued in service by interim orders court direct appellants to pay salary and emoluments to writ petitioners from when such pay and emoluments were stopped till date of this judgment within a period of two months from today –
Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. These appeals are preferred against the common judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 passed in W.P Nos.3082, 4818, 15161, 20948 of 2019 and 1977 of 2020.
2. Writ Petition Nos.4818, 15161 and 20948 of 2019 were filed by K. Venkata Rao and Writ Petition Nos.3082 of 2019 and 1977 of 2020 were filed by Gajula Sarat Chandra Babu and all the writ petitions were allowed setting aside the orders impugned and granting consequential benefits.
3. W.A.Nos.381, 382, 411, 426 and 46 of 2020 are preferred by Acharya Nagarjuna University (for short, ‘the University’) in respect of W.P.Nos.3082 of 2019, 4818 of 2019, 1977 of 2020, 20948 of 2019 and 15161 of 2019, respectively.
4. W.A.Nos.30 of 2021 and 35 of 2021 are filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of W.P.Nos.4818 of 2019 and 3082 of 2019, respectively.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have advanced arguments in W.A.No.382 of 2020 as the learned single Judge had passed the judgment based on W.P.No.4818 of 2019.
6. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to take note of basic facts and the nature of relief sought in each of the writ petitions for better appreciation of the issues involved.
7. In W.P.No.3082 of 2019, the writ petitioner- Gajula Sarat Chandra Babu called into question a Memorandum dated 07.02.2019, directing him to retire on 31.05.2019 on attaining the age of 60 years, instead of 62 years, by treating him as non-teaching staff, with a further prayer to allow him to continue in service upto the age of 62 years. The petitioner was, at the relevant point of time, holding the post of the Assistant Professor in Library and Information Science in the University. It is relevant to state that the post of Documentation officer, which the petitioner was holding, was re-designated as Assistant Professor in Library and Information Science.
8. In W.P.No.3082 of 2019, an interim order was passed on 01.05.2019 (in I.A.No.1 of 2019) directing the University to continue the writ petitioner in service with the rider that entitlement of the petitioner for salary would depend on further orders to be passed, and thereafter, by order dated 24.07.2019, he was allowed to continue in service till the disposal of the writ petition. While the petitioner was allowed to continue to attend to his duties till the third week of December, 2019, he was prevented from attending to his duties on 19.12.2019. When asked for the reason, he was served with a proceeding dated 19.12.2019, whereby he was retired and relieved from the services of the University with immediate effect. Accordingly, the proceedings dated 19.12.2019 were assailed in W.P.No.1977 of 2020.
9. In W.P.No.4818 of 2019, the writ petitioner-K. Venkata Rao called into question the proceedings dated 29.03.2019 directing him to retire on 31.07.2019 on attaining the age of 60 years, instead of 62 years, by treating him as non-teaching staff, with a further prayer to allow him to continue in service upto the age of 62 years. At the relevant point of time, he was holding the post of Professor of Library and Information Science. It is relevant to state that the post of University Librarian, which the petitioner was holding, was re-designated as Professor in Library and Information Science.
10. In W.P.No.4818 of 2019, an interim order was passed on 16.07.2019, suspending the order dated 29.03.2019, and another interim order was passed on 24.07.2019 extending the earlier order and allowing him to continue in service till disposal of the writ petition. By an order dated 13.09.2019, while allowing him to continue in service with payment of salary, the University withheld his administrative, financial and academic functions as Librarian and entrusted those functions to his next senior most officer. Another order dated 19.09.2019 was issued appointing Deputy Librarian as In-charge Librarian of the University and directing the petitioner to handover administrative and financial powers to the Deputy Librarian. Challenging the aforesaid
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
