The judgment established the principle that ad hoc service is eligible for counting under UGC Regulations for promotion and emphasized the requirement for authorities to provide substantive reasons for their decisions.

ORDER :

1. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“... to issue Writ of Mandamus or any order or direction declaring the action of Respondent University in promoting ineligible Juniors overlooking the petitioners candidature vide Proc.No.8125/Ser.I/CAS/(Stage.II)/2018, dated 08.10.2018 and further rejecting the petitioners claim of “Counting of past ad hoc Service/Experience for future promotions” vide Memo No.3350/Ser.I/2016, dated 02.06.2021 following non statutory “SVVU Regulations 2010 & 2018” adopted by the Government of A.P., as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles, 14,16,19(1) (g), 21, 300A and 309 of the Constitution of India, besides holding it as a civil contempt of not following the law well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court, other Hon’ble High Courts on the issues of strict enforceability of UGC Regulations in State Universities and counting of past ad hoc service of teachers for promotions, in spite of such clear exposition of law been brought to the notice of the Respondents University on multiple occasions and consequently direct the 1st and 3rd respondents to count the petitioners past ad hoc teaching & Extension service as “Qualifying Experience” for both direct recruitment and CAS promotions conferring all consequential benefits along with the interest for the duration of delay in promotions from the date of eligibility period and further direct 1st and 3rd respondents to correct the dates of CAS promotions of “NET Relaxed Recriters” from date of acquiring NET qualification i.e., date of declaration of NET exam Result and consequently direct the 4th respondent to recover the losses incurred to public exchequer in accordance with clause 5(39) of APHERMC Regulations 2020 for unlawful action of erring officials in conferring illegal promotions by violating statutory UGC Regulations, in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders…”

2. The petitioner, a Veterinary postgraduate, successfully completed his master's degree in 2012 from the prestigious Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI). In that same year, he also qualified the National Eligibility Test (NET), which is a mandatory requirement for assuming a teaching position within the University/College system. Subsequently, on 01.10.2012, the petitioner was appointed as a "Research Associate" in the vacant position of Assistant Professor at KVK, Garikapadu, which falls under the jurisdiction of Acharya NG Ranga Agriculture University, Guntur. He served in this role for duration of 47 days, until 16.11.2012. Later, on 12.12.2012, the petitioner was appointed as a "Teaching Assistant (Contractual basis)" in the vacant position of Assistant Professor at NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram. This college is a constituent college of the Veterinary University, the respondent in this case. The petitioner worked in this capacity for a period of 8 months and 12 days, until 26.07.2013, with a notional gap of two days.

3. On 27.07.2013, the petitioner was appointed permanently as an "Assistant Professor" in NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram. This appointment was made based on the petitioner's possession of a Master's degree along with the qualification of National Eligibility Test (NET), which is the minimum essential requirement for the post as per UGC Regulations 2010. In the same recruitment process, the Respondent University conditionally appointed over 150 Assistant Professors who did not meet the minimum essential qualification of the National Eligibility Test (NET). These appointments were done by relaxing the said requirement, however, the university failed to obtain necessary approval for such relaxation from the University Grants Commission (for short „UGC?). This approval is essential as per the F.1-1/2003 (PS) Meeting dated 09.02.2004.

4. According to the AP Subordinate Service Rules 1996, appointments made with the relaxation of essentia