Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
G. NARENDAR, KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, JJ.
Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Rep. By its Registrar Administration Building, Tirupati & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Chairman & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 695 of 2024
Decided On : 14-08-2024
For the Appellants : Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned Counsel.
For the Respondent: Smt. Sodum Anvesha.
IMPORTANT POINT
Interim relief must not disadvantage a party and should be based on a strong prima facie case, preserving the status quo until a full hearing.
Headnote:
Interim Relief - Writ Appeal - A.P. Fundamental Rules, A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules - The court discussed the principles governing interim relief, emphasizing that such relief should not disadvantage a party without a full hearing, and highlighted the need for a strong prima facie case.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Appeal challenges interim orders from a Writ Petition regarding the appointment of a Registrar who had completed his tenure and subsequently appointed as a Professor, raising questions about the legality of the appointment and the termination of lien.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interim order effectively granted the main relief, placing the University at a disadvantage without a full hearing, and emphasized the need for a proper assessment of facts before granting such relief.
Issues: Whether a person appointed to a permanent post can be prohibited from reverting to their original post after completing their tenure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that interim relief should not disadvantage a party and must be based on a strong prima facie case, reiterating that such relief should preserve the status quo rather than alter it.
Result: The Writ Appeal is partly allowed, and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration of interim relief.
JUDGMENT :
G. Narendar, J.
1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant-University and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent-Writ Petitioner.
2. The Writ Appeal is directed against the interim orders granted in W.P.No.15661 of 2024, dated 23.07.2024 whereby, the learned Single Judge was pleased to grant interim order in the following terms :
“A perusal of the extracted Rule position would makes it clear that lien of Government Servant’s on a post shall stand terminated on his acquiring a lien on a permanent post or on completion of three years in new department.
Case at hand, respondent No.5 was appointed as Registrar on 28.06.2021 (permanent post) for a period of three years. As seen from the 2nd reference of the impugned memo, respondent No.5 handed over charge to Dr. V. Chengalvarayulu, Controller of Examinations on 28.06.2024. After handling over charge, respondent No.5 issued proceedings appointing him as a Professor at Department of Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science, Tirupati.
Since respondent No.5 lien on the said post was terminated, he cannot be appointed again on the cadre of Professor, the proceedings vide Memo. No.440735/O.P/2023, dated 29.06.2024 (Ex.P1), is hereby suspended.”
3. It is pertinent to note that the Writ Petition is one for issuance of Writ of Quo-Warranto and the relief sought for, reads as under :
“For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of quo warranto calling upon 5th respondent under what authority of law he is reverted to the post of Professor and holding the said post of “Professor” in College of Veternity Science, Tirupati along with resultant positions of “University Head of the Department & Member, Academic Council” of 2nd respondent University and thereby declare the posting orders in Proc.No.440735/O.P/2023, dated 29.06.2024 of 2nd respondent as illegal, void ab initio and violative of Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules FR 14-A (d) read with Clause 3 (vi) of Additional Statutes of the University, Rule 30 (e) of A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 apart from being violative of law enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. S.K. Kacker Vs. AIIMS (1996 10 SCC 734) and set aside the same and consequently to issue a public law declaration that his status in the “University Teaching Services” as deemed resignation in accordance with Rule 30 (e) of A.P.S.S.S.R 1996 read with Clause 3 (vi) of Additional Statutes of the University and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
4. The issue that is canvassed before us is whether a person who has been appointed to a permanent post can be prohibited to revert back or be repatriated back to his original post. The petitioner has placed reliance on the ruling reported in the case of Dr. S.K. Kacker Vs. AIIMS, (1996) 10 SCC 734.
5. We have perused the said ruling and more particularly facts in paragraph No.4 and discussion in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has placed reliance on the Fundamental Rules of the State, which notified the post of the Director, AIIMS Institute. The said issue has also been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in one of its latter Rulings in the case of P. Venugopal Vs. Union of India and the said issue had been dealt in paragraph No.29.
6. On a reading of the above Ruling, it would demonstrate that the issue is not settled as sought to be canvassed by the petitioner. That apart, it is not in dispute that the question of deemed resignation again depends on a complete appreciation of the facts in the case and drawing interferences and any prima facie appreciation could result in injury or loss to a party which cannot be compensated by the Court if the Writ Petition was found to be misconceived or un-sustainable. That apart, a reading of the interim relief in our opinion amounts t
