DR. B. SREEKANTH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. O UDAYA KUMAR SC For S K UNIVERSITY

2. GP FOR SERVICES II

3. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: Whether the order is : Speaking No/ Reasoned No Reportable No/Non-Reportable Yes 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.19509 of 2025 ORDER:

1. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the Resolution No.182-3417(3.2.4), dated 28.06.2026 as constructive dismissal without enquiry and rejecting the revisional orders in Resolution No.193-3537(3.1.1), dated 11.07.2025 passed by Respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The facts, in brief, are as follows; The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Respondent No.2-University on 27.01.2010. While so, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.766 of 2011 passed interim order in I.A.No.2 of 2021 on 28.07.2021 to implement the UGC Pay Scales. The Petitioner then gave a representation for extension of minimum time scale to him as directed in the said appeal.

3. On 20.10.2021, the Petitioner was placed under suspension on certain allegations. After conducting enquiry by the Executive Committee it was recommended to drop all the charges framed against the Petitioner and the Executive Council had resolved to reinstate the Petitioner vide Resolution dated 21.03.2023 and proceedings were also issued to that effect on 01.05.2023. In spite 5 of the resolution, it is stated that the Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent-University issued another proceedings proposing to constitute another committee of enquiry.

4. On account of the disturbed work atmosphere and the health condition of his wife, the Petitioner applied for leave on 08.06.2023 for ten (10) months on personal grounds. However, his request was not considered and the Petitioner was unable to work. In that scenario, the Petitioner applied for Extraordinary Leave (EOL) on

24.06.2023 for ten (10) months or in the alternative to treat his request as resignation, if the laws of the University do not permit for Extraordinary Leave (EOL). Consequent thereto, the Respondents relieved the Petitioner on 28.06.2023 treating his letter as one of resignation.

5. It is stated that the post to which the Petitioner had resigned is still vacant. After attending to his wife’s health issues, the Petitioner sought for revision by way of representation on 14.06.2024 seeking for permission of withdrawal of forced resignation. It is stated that as per Rule 29 of the University Laws, the revision can be filed in one year. As no orders were passed thereto, the Petitioner submitted appeal the State Government vide representation dated

22.07.2024. After due communications between the University and 6 the State Government, the State Government vide letter dated

14.09.2024 directed the Respondent-University to consider the request of the Petitioner to reinstate him as Assistant Professor and to consider the date of his reinstatement into service as Assistant Professor on Extraordinary Leave (EOL).

6. Thereafter, the Executive Council of the Respondent- University vide Resolution dated 20.11.2024 resolved that the State Government to take a final call on the request of the Petitioner. Questioning the same, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.6013 of 2025 before this Court and this Court passed an interim order on

24.03.2025 directing the Executive Counsel to take a final decision as the Government has no say either in appointment or in removal of the Petitioner. Consequent thereto, the Executive Council vide Order dated 11.07.2025 rejected the request of the Petitioner for his reinstatement into service.

7. A Counter-Affidavit has been filed by Respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology on 27.01.2010 along with 20 other Assistant Professors subject to the approval of the Executive Council. It is stated that the Government received several 7 complaints regarding appointments of the Petitioner and other similarly placed appointees.

8. Thereafter, an enquiry was ordered vide G.O.Ms.No.17, Higher Education Department, dated 03.03.2010 appointing Sri Justice A. Hanumanthu, Retired Judge of this Court as the Enquiry Authority to examine the irregular and illegal appointments. The Enquiry Committee held that the appointments made by the then Vice-Chancellor, including that of the Petitioner, were in violation of law. However, the State Government after due consideration regularized the said appointments vide G.O.Ms.No.31, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 23.08.2022.

9. It is stated that the Petitioner had submitted a letter on

08.06.2023 requesting for sanction of Extraordinary Leave (EOL) on loss of pay for a period of ten (10) months i.e., from 12.06.2023 to

11.04.2024 on personal grounds. In response, the Respondent- University informed that the EOL was not feasible in view of the commencement of the academic calendar and thereafter the Petitioner submitted a letter on 24.06.2023 and sought for EOL on loss of pay for the above said period of ten (10) months on personal grounds and further stated that in the event the Rules do not permit the sanction of EOL as the letter of resignation is with effect from 8

24.06.2023. It is stated that the Respondent-University had placed letters of the Petitioner before the Executive Council in its meeting held on 28.06.2023 and it was resolved not to accede to the request of the Petitioner and accept resignation from the said post.

10. It was further pleaded that the Petitioner was relieved from service on 28.06.2023 and he had submitted ‘No Due Certificate’ from all the concerned sections through his letter dated 03.07.2023 and requested for settlement of all his financial benefits. Accordingly, taking note of the request of the Petitioner, the financial benefits due to him were paid.

11. It was also stated that the Petitioner’s EOL for ten (10) months is unacceptable and that the Petitioner had participated in political campaigning for one political party the State at Ananthapur during his leave period, which discloses that the EOL was only sought for participating in election campaign. As the Petitioner himself asked for voluntary resignation, now cannot turn around and contend that the resignation was conditional and that the services of the Petitioner would stand terminated on account of acceptance of letter of resignation. 9

12. A Rejoinder was filed by the Petitioner, wherein it is stated that the Petitioner was kept under suspension for 558 days from October, 2021 and at that time, the Respondents did not consider the suffering of the students as the Petitioner was the sole Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology and when the Petitioner is seeking for EOL, the same is denied on the ground that the students would suffer. It is also stated that steps were initiated for settlement of financial benefits in April, 2024 only.

13. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy would contend that the resignation must be un-conditional and submits that in the event EOL was unacceptable to the Respondents, the Petitioner should have been put on notice of the same for the Petitioner to take further action in that regard. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is entitled for EOL and no reasons have been assigned for rejecting the same. Apart from that, it is stated that acceptance of resignation by the Executive Council is unsustainable as they are not the competent authorities to accept the same. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 10 Dr. Prabha Atri v. The State of U.P & Ors1 and P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors v. Union of India & Ors2.

14. The learned Additional Advocate General Sri E. Sambasiva Prathap appearing for the Respondent-University would submit that the Petitioner ought to have raise the issue of acceptance of resignation at the earliest point of time and that the Petitioner accepted the decision of the Executive Council by submitting ‘No Due Certificate’ from the concerned Department on 03.07.2023. It is further stated that the EOL is not sanctioned on mere asking and there should be a substantial reason for an individual to seek for EOL and as the Petitioner did not give any reason for seeking EOL, the same was rightfully rejected and the acceptance of the resignation was rightfully done so by the Executive Council. It is stated that the Executive Council is the final authority relating to University and no interference is required.

16. Heard the respective counsels.

17. The Petitioner vide letter dated 24.06.2023 sought for sanction of EOL on loss of pay on personal and domestic grounds. It is further stated that if the Rules do not permit sanction of EOL on loss of pay