Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Ganga Rao, J.
Desabathula Ratna Kumar, S/o. D.Rajaratnam - Petitioner
Versus
Govt. of A.P., Higher Education (VC-II) Department and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No: 9353 OF 2008
Decided On : 10-03-2023
Mandamus - Appointment of Physical Director - Act 2 of 1994, G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995, G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 27.3.2006, G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 23.9.2002 - The court discussed the legality and validity of the appointment of the petitioner as Physical Director in light of the relevant acts and government orders. It found that the appointment was made after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 and was not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 12.3.2012. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought mandamus to approve his appointment as Physical Director, admit him to grant-in-aid, and pay his salary. The petitioner claimed to belong to the BC Community and was appointed by the 4th respondent college. However, his appointment was not approved, and he was not paid salary due to the pendency of a writ petition by another candidate. The court granted interim orders for salary payment but ultimately dismissed the petitioner's writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment was made after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 and was not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 12.3.2012. It held that the petitioner's case was not similar to that of others who were admitted into grant-in-aid posts. The court deemed the writ petition devoid of merits and dismissed it.
Issues: The main issue was the legality and validity of the petitioner's appointment as Physical Director, considering the relevant government orders and acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the fact that the petitioner's appointment was made after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 and that he was not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 12.3.2012. The court also emphasized that the petitioner's case was not similar to that of others who were admitted into grant-in-aid posts.
Final Decision: The writ petition was found to be devoid of merits and was accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
ORDER :
The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus:
(b) to direct the 2nd respondent to admit the petitioner grant-in-aid;
(c) to direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders in ratifying the proposal sent by the 2nd respondent in the matter of appointment of the petitioner as Physical Director;
(d) to direct the respondents to pay the salary for the period functioned till such decision is taken by holding the action of the 1st respondent in not taking any steps or decision in the matter; and
(e) the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not paying the salary though similarly placed persons are being paid as bad, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to BC Community. He passed Masters Degree in Physical Education in the year 1994. The 4th respondent college issued Advertisement dated 04.4.2003 calling for applications to fill up the single and solitary post of Physical Director (Aided post) duly prescribing qualifications. The petitioner submitted his application in response to the advertisement as he is fully eligible and qualified to be appointed as Physical Director in the 4th respondent College. He was selected by the duly constituted selection committee as per the procedure and the 4th respondent college has given appointment order dated 28.5.2003 and he joined duty on 02.6.2003. The 4th respondent addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent for approval of the post of Physical Director. While so, one Sri P. Raja Kumar Babu who was working in VJ High School, which school is attached to the 4th respondent college and run by the same society filed W.P.No.8414 of 2002 claiming promotion to the post of Physical Director to which the petitioner was appointed. Thereafter, communication went on between the Board and the College but no final orders of approval was granted by the Board due to pendency of the above writ petition and consequently, he was not placed in grant-in-aid post by the 2nd respondent and was not paid salary since his appointment. Subsequently, the said Sri P. Raja Kumar Babu had withdrawn W.P.No.8414 of 2002 on 09.03.2006. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent directed the Regional Joint Director to furnish remarks in the matter vide proceedings dated 24.2.2007 who in turn vide proceedings dated 07.05.2007 sought for favourable orders in favour of the petitioner but no action has been taken. Despite the petitioner’s appointment by the Board, he was not being paid salary. Several other Physical Directors and Librarians who are similarly situated to that of the petitioner were appointed by the different private aided colleges across the State even after appointment of the petitioner and all of them are getting salaries, whereas the petitioner is being denied payment of salaries, which is illegal and arbitrary.
3. This Court, on 28.04.2008 while ordering rule nisi granted the following interim order in WPMP.No.12346 of 2008:
4. The petitioner filed WPMP.No.20866 of 2011 seeking a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner into grant-in-aid and pay salary on par with Sri P. Venugopal Reddy who is similarly placed like the petitioner herein. This Court, by order dated 17.9.2012 following the order passed in WP.No.3847 of 2008 dated 03.09.2012 directed the pay the respondents 1 and 2 to admit the petitioner to grant-in-aid and pay her at the minimum of the pay with effect from 01.10.2012, subject to the result of the writ petition.
5. The 2nd respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner was appointed through selection committee held on 27.5.2003 during the ban period. The Government has enacted Act 2 of 1994 to regulate the appointments
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's appointment as Physical Director was not entitled to the benefit of certain government orders and acts, leading to the dismis....
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 r....
Appointments made with proper oversight and approval cannot be deemed illegal solely due to procedural irregularities, especially when no disciplinary actions have been taken against the appointees.
Absorption into aided posts requires adherence to established rules and qualifications; long service alone cannot justify irregular appointments.
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
Long-standing appointments cannot be invalidated without evidence of wrongdoing, emphasizing stability in employment.
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
