O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 30th July, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by which they have been asked to revisit the matter of promoting the respondent no.1 to the post of Professor from an earlier date, as prayed by him.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that per se the order to reconsider and revisit the issue does not prejudice the appellants, but in view of the findings recorded in the impugned order, their hands are tied, which according to him would lead to miscarriage of justice for the reason that valid Government Orders, which had not been interfered by the Courts, have been casually brushed aside and the consideration now is limited dehors orders which were validly issued by the Government and which the Courts had not interfered till then. Moreover, it was submitted that even in the impugned order, the vacancies available for reconsideration have been mentioned as 14, whereas as per their records, it would, at best, be 9. Thus, inter alia, on both these accounts, this Court should interfere.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the stand of the State Government is misconceived as substantially the issue was decided by this Court in the case of Challa Jaya Bhaskar & Ors. Vs Thungathurthi Surender & Ors. [(2010) 13 SCC 348]. It was submitted that the connected Government Orders on the issue have been struck down and as per the law operating, the case of the respondent no.1 has to be considered, which the appellants are resisting.

6. Having considered the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere as basically the direction to the appellants is to revisit the matter in view of the law as has been laid down. However, with regard to the stand taken by the appellants that there may be lesser vacancies than 14, we only clarify that when the review exercise is undertaken, it goes without saying that the number of posts which were available on the said date on which consideration has to be reckoned, will be based on the actual records and not by mere observation in any order.

7. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

8. The appellants are required to comply with the impugned order within eight weeks from today. The Contempt Petition stands deferred by a period of eight weeks and upon the impugned order being complied, shall stand closed.

...........…….…………...………..J.

[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH] .………..…...……………….......J.

[SANDEEP MEHTA]

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 08, 2024 PS ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8188/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-07-2018 in WP No. 12950/2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad For The State Of Telangana And The State Of Andhra Pradesh)

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS DR.S SRINIVAS REDDY & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

(IA No. 76422/2021 - STAY APPLICATION)

Date : 08-02-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

R.No.1 Dr. K. Lakshmi Narsimha, Adv. (Though VC)

Mr. Eeshan D. Khaire, Adv.

M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR R.Nos.2 & 3 Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Mr. Pusa Mallesh, Adv.

Mr. Santhosh Kumar Puppala, Adv.

Ms./Mr. Shireesh Tyagi, Adv.

Ms. Medha Singh, Adv.

Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, AOR UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order, which is placed on the file.

(POOJA SHARMA) (NAND KISHOR)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)