SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 84

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
Chukka Sarath Babu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Medical & Health Department, A.P. Secretariat & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 12453 of 2010 & 20604 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Jada Sravan Kumar.
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Services-III, V. Hima Bindu.

Point of Law: High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equality.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950- Articles 16, 19, 21 and 300-A - Contractual nature of appointment - Post of Assistant Librarian - Respondent No.3 in failing to initiate any action on the representation of the petitioner dated 05.06.2020 for continuation of his service as Assistant Librarian in 3rd Respondent’s office in spite of the Proc.No Memo of 1st Respondent of 1st and 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the violating of Articles - Respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the orders of this Hon’ble Court passed in Writ Petition - petitioner was directed to be continued in service and by the later order, it was extended until further orders - Though learned Government Pleader for Services-III referred to contractual nature of appointment of petitioner, in the light of the earlier order of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad referred to above, the respondents cannot interfere with the service and necessarily.

Finding of the Court:

Parties who seek aid of the Court for exercising its discretionary power is expected to state correct facts. However, the petitioner as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 had not stated/disclosed the material facts - High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equality. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.

Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

1. These two Writ Petitions were filed by one Mr. Ch. Sarath Babu with regard to the post of Assistant Librarian in Government Dental College & Hospital, Vijayawada.

W.P.No.12453 of 2010 was filed with the following prayer:-

    “…..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Proceedings in RC.No.GDCH/E1/2010 dated 31.05.2010 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also suffers from malafides and consequently direction the respondents to continue the petitioner as Assistant Librarian in Government Dental College and Hospital, Vijayawada on contract basis with all consequential and incidental benefits attached to the said post, and pass such other order….”

An interim order was granted on 03.06.2010 suspending the Proceedings dated 31.05.2010 issued by the Principal, Government Dental College & Hospital, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as, the College), the 3rd respondent, in the above said Writ Petition. The said interim orders were subsequently extended until further orders on 30.06.2010.

2. While the said Writ Petition was pending, Mr. Ch. Sarath Babu filed the second Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.20604 of 2020 seeking the following relief:-

    “….. to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in failing to initiate any action on the representation of the petitioner dated 05.06.2020 for continuation of his service as Assistant Librarian in 3rd Respondent’s office in spite of the Proc.No.Rc.No.14849/E4=B/2015, dated 24.06.2019 and Memo of 1st Respondent bearing No.1046872/A2/2019-1, dated 17.12.2019 of 1st and 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the violating of Articles 16, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.06.2020 in the light of the orders of this Hon’ble Court passed in Writ Petition No.12453 of 2020 dated 13.06.2020 (Sic.Writ Petition No.12453 of 2010 dated 13.06.2010) for continuation of his services as Assistant Librarian in the 3rd Respondent college and to pass such other order or orders….”

At the time of admission, the following interim order was passed on 11.11.2020.

    “Learned counsel for petitioner brought to the notice of this Court orders of the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.M.P.No.15705/2010 in W.P.No.12453/2010, dated 30.06.2010 whereby the earlier order dated 03.06.2010, the petitioner was directed to be continued in service and by the later order dated 30.06.2010, it was extended until further orders.

Though learned Government Pleader for Services-III referred to contractual nature of appointment of petitioner, in the light of the earlier order of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad referred to above, the respondents cannot interfere with the service and necessarily, it shall continue.

In the backdrop of the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to be continued as Assistant Librarian-3rd respondent college on contract basis subject to payment of salary, until further orders.”

3. One Mr. G.V. Chowdary claiming to be a proper and necessary party to W.P.No.20604 of 2020 filed a petition to implead him as respondent No.4, which was ordered by a separate order. As both the Writ Petitions relate to the claim of petitioner to the post of Assistant Librarian, they are taken up together and disposed of by this Common Order.

4. Heard Mr. Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-III and Smt. V. Hima Bindu appearing for respondent No.4 in W.P.No.20604 of 2020.

5. A brief narrative of the Writ Petitions for better appreciation of the lis may be stated thus :

The petitioner passed M.A., (History) and Master of Library and Inform

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top