IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that absorption into aided posts requires individual assessment based on employment terms and adherence to selection procedures.

JUDGMENT :

Harinath N., J.

The batch of writ appeals are filed by the State aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions by setting aside the orders rejecting the absorption of the respondents in the writ appeals in Aided posts. The learned Single Judge further directed the State to absorb the petitioners in the Aided posts of Lecturers in the respective private managements with all consequential benefits. The said orders are challenged and as a common issue involved in all the writ appeals, as such a common judgment is passed.

2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in not considering the counter affidavit submitted in the writ petition and erroneously held that no counter was filed. The State has submitted a detailed counter affidavit and the same is on record.

3. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the respondents were made amply clear through various proceedings categorically mentioning that those posts will be un-aided and will not be admitted to grant-in-aid either now or in future and the entire expenditure will be met from the College Management Funds Only. It is also submitted that the respondents were engaged as un-aided Lecturers in pursuance of the proceedings referred above. In such a scenario the respondents cannot seek absorption into aided regular government vacancies. The learned Government Pleader further submits that the detailed counter filed by the State was not at all considered by the learned Single Judge before passing the orders impugned in the writ petitions.

4. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the respondents were aware of their terms of appointment and they are also aware of the conditions of their employment. The respondents are also aware of their non-existent right seeking absorption into the Aided post. It is also stated that, the respondents also have not submitted any documents which assured them of their right to seek absorption into grant-in-aid post.

5. GO.Ms.No.12, dated 22.01.1992 prescribes the procedure for selection of Lecturers and Junior Lecturers. The relevant portion extracted hereunder ;

The private managements shall notify the vacancies to the employment exchange and without waiting for sponsoring of candidates by the employment exchange, after a lapse of 15 days, the private management shall notify the vacancies in 2 dailies indicating the roster point, calling for application from the eligible candidates.

It is brought to the notice of the Court, the private managements have not notified the vacancies and have evaded intimation to the employment exchange.

6. It is also submitted that majority of the aided institutions have voluntarily surrendered their aid and staff to the Government in consonance with the policy decision of the Government notified vide GOMs.No.42, dated 10.08.2021. The learned Government Pleader relies on Union of India Vs. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows ;

13. A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in himself. A writ of mandamus is issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform but has failed and/or neglected to do so. Such a legal duty or by operation of law. The writ of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature. The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted.

7. The learned Government Pleader also placed reliance on Seshmani Shukla Vs. District Inspector of Schools, (2009) 5 SCC 65, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the writ petitioner must establish a legal right in himself and a corresponding legal duty in the State. Further reliance is placed on State of Rajasthan Vs. Dayalal and others, (2011) 2 SCC 429. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the well settled principles relating to regularizat