APHC010144462017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 32822 OF 2017 Between:
1. Dr.K.C.Shankaraiah, S/o. K.Krishna, Aged 42 years, Occ:Asst. Professor Dept. of Philosophy, (on contract basis) Rayalseema University, Kurnool, Kurnool District, State of Andhra Pradesh, R/o.Plot No. 34 & 37, Vijaya Lakshmi Nagar Water Tank, Kurnool, A.P.518003, 2. Sareddy Chiranjeevi Reddy, S/o. S.Obula Reddy, aged 35 years, Occ:Asst. Professor, Department of Electronics & Communications, on contract basis, in Rayalseema University, Kurnool, Kurnool District, State of Andhra Pradesh, R/o. H.No.2-1-365, Bayamma Thota, Pulivendula, Cuddapah, A.P-516390.
3. D.Vijaya Pushpamani, D/o. Devanandam, (W/o. M.Mahesh), aged 34 years, Occ:Asst. Professor Dept. of Physics on contract basis in Rayalseema University, Kurnool, Kurnool District, State of Andhra Pradesh, R/o. 41-79, S S Nagar, Kurnool, N. R. Peta Kurnool, A.P.518 004.
...Petitioners AND
1. Rayalaseema University Rep by its Registrar Kurnool, Kurnool District, State of Andhra Pradesh, 2. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary, to Govt., Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District
3. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary, to Govt., Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the Respondents not allowing the Petitioners to continue as Assistant Professors in respective departments on the ground that the authorities appointed fresh candidates in pursuance of the notification in Circular No. RU/Teaching Estt/Circular/2017, dt. 18.05.2017 even though the said notification itself was set aside by this Hon'ble High Court as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and malafide violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions directing the Respondents to forthwith allow the Petitioners to continue as Assistant Professors on contract basis in the 1 0 Respondent university and pass such other orders in paying the minimum time scale attached to the post of Assistant Professor on par with regular Assistant Professors and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 40814 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents not to replace the Petitioners by any other contract Assistant Professors in pursuance of the notification in Circular No. RU/Teaching Estt/Circular/2017, dt. 18.05.2017 and continue the Petitioners in service pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR EDUCATION (AP)
Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP)
The Court made the following order:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.32822 of 2017
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following main prayer:-
“……..declaring the Circular No. RU/Teaching Estt./Circular/2017, dt. 18.05.2017 issued by the 1St Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, malafide, discriminatory and unconstitutional violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same in so far as the Petitioners are concerned and issue consequential directions restraining the Respondents from replacing the Petitioners by any other contract lecturers in pursuance of the Circular No. RU/Teaching Estt./Circular/2017, dt. 18.05.2017 and issue further directions directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioners as contract lecturers till regularizing their services against regular posts and pass…….”
2. Heard Sri S.Karunakar, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. N. Vijaya Santhi, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent University and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education.
Brief case of the petitioners
3. The 1st petitioner was appointed on 06.08.2015 as Assistant Professor in Department of Education for imparting education for the subject of philosophy, computer education and research methodology on contract basis in 2015-16 in 1st respondent University on a monthly honorarium and worked up to 14.07.2017. The 2nd petitioner joined as Assistant Professor on 20.08.2015 on contract basis in 2015-16 in the department of electronic in 1st respondent University on payment of monthly honorarium. The 3rd petitioner joined on 16.09.2016 on contract basis in 2015-16 in the department of physics in 1st respondent University on payment of monthly honorarium and continued upto May 2017.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that even though the petitioners are working in the teaching side for more than 10 years as Assistant Professors without any blemish, the 1st respondent University has not regularized the petitioners’ services and continued to pay the salaries on adhoc basis, which is less than the salaries that are being paid to the regular posts even though the duties discharged by the petitioners are similar to the regular employees.
5. The 1st respondent University being the autonomous increasing posts and subjects day by day, however, denying for payment of minimum time scale to the petitioners on par with regular lecturers, who worked for 10 years on adhoc basis at the 1st respondent University and it is the minimum obligation of the 1st respondent University to treat the equals as equals and regularize the services of the petitioners in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
6. While so, to the petitioners’ utter disgrace, the 1st respondent University has issued the impugned circular dated 18.05.2017 and chosen to recruit the Assistant Professors/Teaching Assistants on temporary basis and asked the Assistant Professors/Teaching Assistants, who are presently working on contract basis in respective departments, to submit their applications. Hence, having left with no other option, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking direction against the action of the respondents from replacing the petitioners by another contract lecturers in pursuance to the impugned circular and also seeking direction against the respondents to continue them as contract lecturers till regularizing their services against the regular posts.
Brief case of the respondents
7. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent University in view of the identical facts and circumstances, adopted the counter affidavit filed in connected matter i.e., W.P.No.21904 of 2017, wherein, it is stated that the petitioners were engaged purely on a temporary and contractual basis as Teaching Assistants/Assistant Professors without undergoing the regular selection process prescribed by UGC regulations. The engagement was for a limited per

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.