IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that prior government orders and similar case precedents must be considered in regularization matters, even in the absence of grant-in-aid.

ORDER :

K Manmadha Rao, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“……to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing/absorbing in aided vacant posts by duly taking uninterrupted 7 years of Service as Full time Contract Lecturer in Law of the petitioners and failed to extend the benefit of orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.620 Higher Education Department, Dated 21.8.2012 by duly taking appropriate action on the common representation dated 29.6.2021, 23.9.2021 and 6.11.2021 to unable the petitioners to apply for the Post of Associate Professor/Professor as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and violation of Principles of Natural Justice consequently direct the respondents to regularize/absorb the services of the petitioners in aided vacant posts in terms similar orders passed in G.O.Rt.No 620 Higher Education Department Dated 21.8.2012 (VR Law College) and also on the same analogy of orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.12 Higher Education (CE-A2) Department dated 10.3.2021 by considering the similar orders passed in W.P.No.12224 of 2021 and pass….”

2. Heard Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education for the respondents.

3. The facts of the case are that all the petitioners herein working as Un-aided Lecturers on contract basis in V.R.Law College, Nellore and have completed 7 years without any break in service. All the petitioners submitted a consolidated representation to the respondents and seeking for regularization/ absorption of their services into grant-in-aid vacant post of Lecturer in V.R. College in terms of G.O.Rt.No.620 HE dated 21.08.2012, as was done to the previous Lecturers in the same college. When the Government cancelled the grant-in-aid to the V.R. Law College, vide G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 31.10.2001, the teaching Staff approached this Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court and got restored the grain-in-aid to the college. Subsequently, there is no cancellation, as of now. It is further stated that, Dr.G.Sridhar, Lecturer who is working along with the petitioners herein has filed W.P.No.12224 of 2021 and this Court has disposed of the same by directing the respondents to consider his absorption in terms of similar consideration.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 with leave petition explaining the reasons for the delay of filing counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit while denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that in pursuance of the orders, the Government after hearing all the interested parties has issued G.O.Ms.No.212 Higher Education (UE.II) Department, dated 14.11.2007. It is mainly stated that the Government have stopped the Grand-in-aid after 1984-85 as the Management of the College made a representation to the Government that the college has attained self- sufficiency and the fee income realized from the students being more than the expenditure. Aggrieved by the same, some of the teaching staff have filed W.P.No.20478 of 1996 before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 13.08.1999 directing the Government to release necessary Grant-in-aid to the V.R.Law College to meet the expenditure on salaries and continue to release the same until G.O.Ms.No.485, dated 19.06.1980 is in operation. Accordingly the 3rd respondent has requested the Government to allow them to run their institution with their own funds without looking for grant-in-aid from Government, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.113, Education, dated 31.10.2001 has withdrawn Grant-in-aid with effect from 01.04.1985. Challenging the same, some of the teaching staff of the College have filed W.P.No.4009 of 2000 and W.P.No.7284 of 2002 before this Court and the same were disposed of vide a common judgment dated 23.09.2003 and directed the Go