The High Court · 2025

5. V. Venkateshwarlu, lncharge Principal, Sri Venkateshwara College, Amarawadi Nagar, Suryapet, Suryapet District (Nalgonda ) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF IUANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in appointing the Sth respondent as a principal of the 4th respondent college is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of lndia, contrary to the seniority list and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a principal to the 4th respondent college along with all service attendant benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under llection 1 51 cPC praying that in the circumstar ces stated in the.affidavit filed in s;rroport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a principal to the 4th respondent college allng with all service attendant, benefits forthwith pending disposal of the above rvrit petition. Counsel for the Petitirrner : SRI RAMESH CHILLA Counsel for the Resp,rndents No.1&2 : GP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Resp,rndents No.3&4 : SRI T'SRIKANTH REDDY Counsel for the Resp rndents No.S : SRI S.RAMAMOHANA RAO The Court made the r,rllowing: ORDER 0 a 6-Av HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 23239 OF 2021 ORDER: Appointment of the Sth respondent as Principal of the 4th respondent college is chailenged in this Writ Petition. Consequential direction is sought tq respondent college to appoint petitioner as Principal of the 4th respondent college along '*,ilh service attendant benefits.

2. Petitioirer u,as appointed as trnglish Lecturer in the 411, respondent college in aided post- uide proceedings dated

19.03.1999. While she was serving the 4th respondent college, tlae 2"d respondenr issued impugned proceedings transferring her from the said college to GDC (Women), Nalgonda. it is stated, petitioner, thereforc, filcd Writ Petition No. 21978 of 2O2 1 whcrein intcrim direction to continue her at the 4e respondent college was passed by order dated 09.09.2O21. The contention of petitioner is that the 5m respondent is junior to her and resoondents without follor,r,ing the seniority appointed him; further, the sth respondent has been harassing petitioner in all respects The complaints lodgeci in that regard against the 5d'respondent are pending; moreo\rer, he was posted as in- charge principal -1 ) t. is stated, the 4m respondent institutc ls i1 pr1\'ate aided instit'- ,ion and it has to follor,v the proce du re and regulations, : I the €lovernment but the olficials o1' re s;p ;ndeut, vrithout ibllc,., i3g any procedure, appointed the ;'h rcsl'oncLent as Princip,al rl the 4ft respondent. Petitioner madc sr ) many represcniati()r rs to the college stating that the qtlr l-cqpot dent is ineligiblc anc junior to her, as such she is entitled lbr the post of Principal. 3, IrL rcsponse to petitioner's affidavrt. ihe 3'l respondenL clarifics the procedure for promotict't Lo th{-r post of Principal irr private aided degree colleges, rT hich is not automatic attd requires initiation by the collegc mana,lement, representcC lrr- the Secretary-cum-Coi-responde rit. It i: stated further that '. lc process has not yet been initiatcd bl th,:m. 'lhe previous Prir,: pal, Dr. K. Raviudra Chary retircd r-;n 30. 1.2020 and petrticnrr, as of that date, was norkin6a rtt lia garjuna Governmenl l)egree Co1lege, Nalgonda due to reCep o1-ment order fronr rc Commissioner of Collegiate Educatior. datcd OS 09-2019 rionsequently, the 3rd respondenl appoinLec the Sth respondent irs In-Charge Principal on the same da1 . The Sth respondr:nt, ,,.'ro was already an Associate Professor in Political t 3 Science, took the role of In-Charge Principal. Furthermore, on the date of assuming the position, the 5m respondent was the senior-most faculty member among both Aided and Un-Aided staff of the College. This respondent further states that petitioner's appointment as Lecturer at the 3rd respondent occurred on

25.O3.1999, with qualifications of M.A., M.Phil. (Second Division). In comparison, the Str' respondent was appointed as Lecturer on 29.1O.1999, ri,'ith highcr qualifications (M.A., B.Ed. First Division, M.Phil. First Division) and obtained Ph.D. on

05. 11.2015, whereas petitroner obtained her Ph.D. on

16.07.2078. Later, the 56 respondent was promoted to the position of Associate Professor in January 2O 15, following the permission of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Government of Telangana. Petitioner subsequently, attempted to apply for a Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) but was found to have submitted fake certihcates, u,hich 1ed to rejection of her proposal by the Regional Joint Director of Coliegrate trducation, Warangal. She acknowledged submission of fake certificates in her reply and requested leniency in action. As a result, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Warangal, I 4 reprimandccl ,r iid returned her proposals withor-rt grant llg any benefits. It r; stated, the 5th respondent was prom( led as Associate I)'rlcssor in January 2015, u'hilc pctilioner's promotion \i. s delayed due to fake ceriiilcaLe s issue' Aclditionally. p,:titioner's claim of being appointed Vice-P -incipal is deniecl, ',vt1lt the respondent asserting that the 5e reslrot'rdent sened as 'r'ice-Principal from 18.i0.2019, ltforc bcing appointcd Ir L Jharge PrinciPal. l'le Srh respondent is described as hi ving a distinguishe<l record, including aw'ards and rccognition for hrs w.ork as NC(l Olficer and ior his ','arious dutics eit the col1ege, such as C ror-dinator for Unnath Bharat Abiril'an, (lampus Placement O1l cer and Coordinator for several oLi-,cr 1lr rgiams. This rcsporrlcnt also delaiis petitioner's requests for trt'nsfer from Suryapt t to Nalgonda due to her husban<l's e mpl:l1'ment' This rcqut:st s as approved by the Commissioner of C ;llcgiate Education. J,:adrng to her redeplol'ment to Nagarjuna (]overnmen, i,egree College, Nalgonda, in Septemle;: 12( 19 The petitiontir -r'ts relieve d from Sri Venkatesn'ari'i CoJiege on Septembe:- t', 2Ol9 , and later returned to the co,lege on Decembr:r =, ,9?r: after being repatriated. .,/ 5 The respondent points out that petitioner was informed about her redeployment through various communicat-ion channels, but she left the college premises on O8.O9.2021, q.ithout approval, even after re ceiving her relieving orders. The respondent argues that her actions were delibcrate ancl points out that her affidavit before the court omitted these facts. Lastly, it is emphasized that petitioner's rcturn to Sri Venkateswara College on 23.09.2021 u,as based on the interim order in Writ Petition No. 21978 of 2O2I, hou'e',,er, it is asserted that petitioner's continued service at the collegc is subject to the iinal judgmenL in the case, and no valid case has been made out lor judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for pctitioner, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, Sri T. Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents 3 and 4 and Sri S. Ramamohana Rao, learned counsel for the 5tI1 respondent.

5. A perusal of the material, particularly averments in counter-affidavit shows that on 25.O7.2O1A, petitioner submitted representation to the Secretary cum Correspondent 6 of the rcsllc)l.r,c1tt College requesting to lransfcr her f 'om Sri Venkatcsu a:. Co11cge, Suryapet to Government Jollege, Nalgonder 31-r -he ground that her husband \r'a ' i\'' )f (ing as Deputy Englrreer zrt Ivlarriguda Mandal, Nalgonda' Ra-*erion thc said request.. proceedings dated 05.09.2019 werc issuer by thc 2"d respotrc[,:r I posting her al Government Degree Coilege, Nalgonda lrr re-dcployment basis; accordingly, on 08.C9.2019, the 3.d re,.p.n:ient rciieved her along q,ith post r:tial:1inr3 her to rcport lhel'ca' . Peiitioner, alter joining at NalgorLda.. aga n made re}-rrescn t.l ti(, I tn 2O20 to transfer her to the 3 d rc s londent coilegc. '11,e ) .,1 i'csponcient again rcpatriatcd ptiil-lonc - to the said college '.''iti-rouL consuiting the 3'd respondei'it Accc rdir-rgly, the 3"iresprtlir:nt on 24.11.2O2O requested the 2"d reslondent to cancci th: i-.r1);l f.f iatiL)n orders, hou.ever, the latter.lirertcd the 3'd rcsprrrclt rt collcge to take back petitioner 1r[, se vicu on

26.11.2()'.2) l'hough learned counsel for petiiiolLcr tarsecl a contcnti,rt tl- at ihe Commissioncr issued pr--,ceed ngs on

26.11.2O2) lcrx.'er,,er, petitioner was not taken tr: se:-"ice till

05.12.2{)2C rnd in the meantime, in-charge p:inci:ra1 r.r'as :rppointt d t: thc 3.d respondent college on 30.1 i.2020 anC the delay in tr,rlllng back the service of petitioner is onl1r to accommorial( the 5th respondent, no such pieading wz s taken *r' 7 in the u,rit afhdavit. Furthcr, when the 2.d respondent clirected the 3.d respondent to admit petitioner into service, on 3O.11.2O2O, the 3.d respondent addressed letter to the 2"d l respondent explaining that there is no sufficient work loa<1 in the college and requested to revoke the repatriation orclers. In the meantrme, on the retirement of Dr.K. Ravindrachary, the Sft respondent was appointed as in charge principal. On O4.12.2O2O, the 3.d respondent college adcircssed the 2"a rcspondent to revoke the repatriation order, but the 2nd respondent directed the 3.d respondent to take back the services of petitioner. Immediately, General Body meeting was held ancl a Resolution was passed taking back petitioner on O5.72.2O2O and the 3.,1 respondent also addressed the 2.d responclenl to regularise the gap between 25.1t.2O2O and 04. 72.2020 by way of eligible leave availabie at her credit. Subsequently, earned leave u.as also sanctioned. Here, at the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that petitioncr was not in service of Sri Venkateswara College, Suryapet from O8-O9-2O19 to 04-12 2O2O and during that time only, the previous Principal Dr. K. Ravindra Chary retired and the management appointed the 5th respondent as In Charge Principal on 30.1 1.2O2O. When petitioner was not working at the relevant point of time, she cannot claim that her \ 8 - ::'1 case \\ras n o-, considered for promotion as Principal Plrrther, petitioncr i()o1: ler ou'n cool time to question the sztmc b filing " this Writ Petiti,rn on 15.09.2021 after a delay of ten nonths r,r,hich u'as r-to. r:xplained either in the writ affidavit or dur ng the course of ar€{ L rlcnts-

6. Ir. ,'ien' of the above, viewed from an1' zrngie, this Court is cr1'.1'Lrt,rpinion that petitioner is not entitlecl to rhe rclief claimed ir-r ,-t Wril Petiticn and the same is lrabie to be dismisse ci.

7. CoStS.

8. ":L(r Writ Pe tition is accordingiy, rlismis;s':d No iioIsequentil-, the miscellaneous Ap:licatlcns' if anv shall st ari:i ciosed. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/-S. MALLI}GRJUNA RAO R 2\ R

1. One CC to SIi: RAIVESH CHILLA, Advocate. [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to Gt) FOR EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana.

3. One CC to SRI T.SR|KANTH REDDY, Advocate. tOpUCl 4. One CC to Sfll {i.RAMAMOHANA RAO, Advocate. tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copie,:; g BSK BS HIGH COURT NBK,J DATED:20102i2025 ORDER WP.No.23239 of 2021 r{( 1;'lE SrLl

14. e o 2 6 r'rAB zffi t( tspAr t.w' DISMISSING HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @c,P'4