DR. M.VEERA KRISHNA v. DR. G. RAVI KUMAR

Order

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following main prayer:- “……..declaring 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…….”

Heard Sri S. Karunakar, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. N. Vijay 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 petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were initially appointed as Teaching Assistant on 01.10.2001, 20.09.2006 and 15.03.2005, respectively, at S.K.University, P.G. Center, Kunool. Thereafter, on an establishment of the 1st respondent Rayalaseema University at Kurnool, all the petitioners 4 were redesignated as Assistant Professors in Mathematics, Computer Science and Telugu, respectively, on 06.11.2014 on contract basis.

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 5 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. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent University, it is stated that the petitioners were engaged purely on a temporary and contractual basis as Teaching Assistants/Assistant Professors without undergoing regular selection process prescribed by UGC regulations. The engagement was for a limited period of approximately 11 months in a year, initially at a consolidated salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.20,000/- and presently Rs.30,000/- per month on mutually agreed terms. There was no notification or constitution of a selection committee with external subject experts at the time of initial engagement, and the petitioners had no vested right to ask for continuation or regularization of their services.

8. Regular teaching posts in the 1st respondent University were sanctioned only through G.O.Ms.No.33 dated 30.06.2017 issued by the 6 Government of Andhra Pradesh. Since the 1st respondent University recruited seven Professors on a regular basis and distributed the teaching workload among existing regular faculty as per UGC norms. In view of the reduced workload, there is no further requirement for the services of temporary/contractual faculty as the petitioners.

9. According the 1st respondent University, all temporary engagements were made in accordance with the guidelines of the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (A.P.S.C.H.E.) and the State Government to meet immediate academic needs pending sanction of regular posts. Contractual faculty appointments are subjected to annual performance review, and there is no provision for automatic regularization or absorption into regular service without undergoing the prescribed regular selection procedure. The allegations of irregularity and entitlement for continuation/ regularization raised by the petitioners are baseless, and the 1strespondent University has acted upon in full compliance with statutory norms without any retractions whatsoever. Submissions of the respective counsel:

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in order to interdict the petitioners’ services, the 1st respondent university issued circular dated 18.05.2017, proposing to appoint a set of adhoc employees in the 7 category of Assistant Professors on the very same contract basis in place of the petitioners and issued an advertisement on 13.05.2017. The learned counsel restricts instant lis mainly on the ground that though the petitioners are working for a long period, the 1st respondent authorities are contemplating to replace them and other contract employees with another set of contract employees for oblique reasons, which is arbitrary and illegal. Though the petitioners raised several averments in respect of their other issues, such as, regularization of their services, he fairly submits that they are pursuing their remedies by way of filing other cases etc. To substantiate his assertions, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of Rattan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana 1 and Manish Gupta Vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti2.

11. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent University Smt.N.Vijaya Santhi, while reiterating contentions made in the counter affidavit, fairly submits that there is no dispute that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis in the 1st respondent University. She also submits that in terms of the interim order dated 18.07.2017, the petitioners are continuing to work in the 1st respondent University. She further submits that the 1st respondent