Back
G. NARENDAR, HARINATH N.
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department – Appellant
Versus
G. Naga Suresh Gupta, S/o. G. V. Chalapathi Rao – Respondent
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
The court established that absorption into aided posts requires individual assessment based on employment terms and adherence to selection procedures.
Absorption into grant-in-aid posts requires adherence to legal procedures and prior approval, which were not followed in the petitioners' initial appointments.
The principle of equal pay for equal work applies where employees perform similar duties regardless of their appointment method; individual assessments are required for regularization claims.
Teachers appointed in unaided posts are entitled to consideration for absorption into aided vacancies if their appointments were valid and similar cases were absorbed.
The principle of equal treatment mandates that employees in similar circumstances must receive identical benefits, including regularization of service.
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 principle of parity mandates that similarly situated individuals must be treated equally in matters of service absorption and benefits.
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
