IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Ganga Rao, J.
Ch.Padmakar S/o.Chinnam Jaya Rao – Petitioner
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2771 of 2010
Decided On : 28-12-2022
Mandamus - Appointment of Physical Directors and Librarians in Aided Colleges - 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 selection and appointment of the petitioners as Physical Director and Librarian in Aided Colleges. It highlighted the provisions of the relevant acts and government orders, their interpretations, and their applicability to the case. The court found that the appointments were made after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 and upheld the dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought writ of mandamus to set aside an impugned memo and consequential proceedings related to their appointment as Physical Directors and Librarians in Aided Colleges. The appointments were approved by the Board of Intermediate Education but the petitioners were not being paid salaries, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointments of the petitioners were made after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995, and therefore, the writ petition was devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the selection and appointment of the petitioners as Physical Director and Librarian was legal and valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointments were made after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995, and the exemption granted in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 27.3.2006 could not be made applicable retrospectively. It also emphasized that Article 14 of the Constitution of India enshrines only positive equality.
Final Decision: The writ petition was found to be devoid of merits and was accordingly dismissed.
ORDER :
The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus by setting aside the impugned Memo No.42351/IE-II(1)/2004 Higher Education Department dated 02.01.2010 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 12.1.2010 which was served on 1.2.2010 to the petitioners.
2. The petitioner claims that the 1st, 3rd and 4th petitioners are appointed as Physical Directors in different Aided Colleges on 16.7.2002, 24.9.2003 and 28.5.2003 respectively pursuant to the Advertisement issued on 9.5.2002, 10.7.2003 and 29.5.2002 calling for applications to fill up the post of Physical Director (Aided post) duly prescribing qualifications, by the duly constituted selection committee as per the procedure. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Librarian on 9.6.2003 pursuant to the Advertisement issued on 14.4.2003 calling for applications to fill up the post of Librarian (Aided post) duly prescribing qualifications by the duly constituted selection committee as per the procedure. The appointment of the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 as Physical Directors and petitioner No.2 as Librarian was approved by the Board of Intermediate Education on 05.06.2003 and 06.10.2003 in respect of Petitioners 1 and 2 only. Despite the petitioner’s appointment was approved by the Board, they were not being paid salary. Several other Physical Directors and Librarians who are similarly situated to that of the petitioners were appointed by the different private aided colleges across the State even after appointment of the petitioners and all of them are getting salaries, whereas the petitioners are being denied payment of salaries, which is illegal and arbitrary.
3. This Court, on 09.02.2010 granted an interim order in WPMP.No.3657 of 2010 directing the respondents to retain and continue the petitioners as Physical Directors/Librarians by staying all further proceedings in pursuance of the Memo No.42351/IE=II(1)/2004 Higher Education Department dated 02.01.2010 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 12.1.2010.
4. The 2nd respondent filed counter along with Vacate Petition stating that Act 2 of 1994 has been enacted to regulate the appointments and prohibit irregular appointments in offices and establishments under the control of State Government, Local Authorities, Corporations and bodies established under law made by the State Legislature. Further, orders have been issued in G.O.Ms.No.275 Finance & Planning (FW:SMPC) Department dated 14.12.1995 stipulating no post can be filled in the departments and offices in the State Government whether full time or part-time, contingent or any other category without getting clearance from the Government in Finance Department. 63 posts of Physical Directors/Librarians in Private Aided Junior Colleges in the State were filled up during the ban period from 1996-2003 in violation of provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 without getting prior approval from the Government and requested the Government to cancel all the irregular appointments made during the ban period i.e., 19962003 and directed to treat the said appointments as contract appointments as they were made in contravention of the orders issued by the Government. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to all the 63 Physical Directors and Librarians who were appointed irregularly, including the petitioners through proceedings dated 12.01.2010. Aggrieved by the show cause notice, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The High Court in its order in WPMP.No.3657 of 2010 suspended the show cause notice and the petitioners are continuing in service. The 3rd respondent has not approved the appointment of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 05.02.1987. Prior permission has to be obtained from the Government for filling up vacant posts in aided Junior Colleges as per G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 and in this case, no permission has been obtained from the Government and th
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the petitioner as a librarian was lawful and in accordance with the relevant government orders and recruitment rules.
Government Orders imposing bans on fresh appointments or restricting the approval of non-teaching staff in government institutions do not apply to sanctioned posts in private aided minority schools, ....
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.
The court affirmed deemed approval for teacher appointments due to the respondent's failure to act within legal timelines and ruled that objections for rejection were legally invalid.
The court emphasized the need for a detailed enquiry into the appointment of the petitioners and highlighted the importance of compliance with rules for salary release and eligibility determination.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.