Point of law; It is clearly clarified in this judgment also in line with the earlier judgments also that unless and until the original appointment is a “regular recruitment” in accordance with “the relevant rules” in an “open competitive process” against “sanctioned posts”, the petitioners are not entitled to regularization etc.

ORDER:

1. Both these writ petitions were heard together with the consent of all the learned counsels.

2. The prayer in W.P.No.10252 of 2019 is as follows:

“….to issue a Writ or a direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent herein in R.C.No.703/Adm NII-1/2018-1, dated 20.11.2018, received by the petitioner on 30.04.2019, rejecting my case for appointing me as Lecturer in English in aided vacancy available in the 3rd respondent college and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, un-constitutional, discrimination and violative of Art.14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the official respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in English in the available aided vacancy and pay all the consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The prayer in W.P.No.10253 of 2019 is as follows:

“….to issue a Writ or a direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent herein in R.C.NO.510/Adm.NII-1/2014, dated 30.01.2015, which was received by me on 26.06.2018, stating that it is not feasible to consider at present my case for absorption into aided post of Lecturer in Mathematics in aided vacancy available in the 3rd respondent college and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, un-constitutional, discrimination and violative of Art.14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the official respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Mathematics in the available aided vacancy and pay all the consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. This Court has heard Sri G. Elisha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Dasari Naveen, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for the official respondents.

5. Sri G. Elisha, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as mentioned in W.P.No.10253 of 2019 the reason for passing the impugned order is the pendency of SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He submits that as the SLP is disposed of directing the State to consider the case of the petitioners, the petitioners case can be considered.

6. Sri Elisha points out that the submissions in both the cases are the same and the question of law and fact are common. The arguments were essentially advanced in W.P.No.10252 of 2019. Sri Elisha pointed out that the impugned order was passed refusing to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization / absorption into Grant-in- Aid. Learned counsel argued that the petitioners were fully qualified to hold the post. He submits that pursuant to a notification they were appointed. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.10252 of 2019, he submits that the petitioner was appointed in a part-time vacancy on 11.07.2005. Thereafter, she continued to render her services and an aided vacancy arose because of superannuation of Sujatha in January, 2006, therefore, the petitioner requested the State to consider her case. The unofficial respondents-management of the college supported the case of the petitioner, but the official respondents did not support the case. It is pointed out that the respondent’s college is a minority educational institution, which has certain privileges, and they had appointed the petitioner after following due process and by following the rules. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the various documents filed and argued that the petitioner is qualified to be appointed; that the due process was followed and that similarly placed lecturers, who have gone to Court, were appointed in aided vacancies and the petitioner is also entitled to the said relief. It is also argued that there were number of orders were passed by the learned