The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd Respondent in not appointing the petitioner as Lecturer under the Notification in Advertisement No.1/92 dt. 16.1 .1992 and rejecting petitioners representation dt.16.9.2004 vide impugned order No.1004lA2|KUl2004lLEG-88 d1.8.10.2004 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Articles '1 4, ',l6 and 2 1 of the Constitution of lndia and contrary to the Resolution of the Board of Management of 2nd Respondent University passed in 17th Meeting dt.13.8.1992 and also contrary to the Notification in Advertisement,.No.1/92 dt.'16.'1 .1992 and consequently set aside the impugned order dt.8.10-2004 and direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in commerce w.e.f . 1 4.08.1 992 under the Notification in Advertisement No.1/92 dt.16.'1 .1992 with notional seniority . all consequential benefits including c o u n s e r f o r t h e P e t i t i o n "' .,r.? LhruNl [,t 1t%11; 3 i'r? o u N s E L Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR HIGHER EDUCATION counsel for Respondent No.2 : sRr p.BHANU PRAKASH, Sr.counser for KU The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No.2483 4 0F 2019 ORDER: Petitioner assails the action of the 2"d respondent - Kakatiya University in not appointing her as ['ecturer under the Notification in Advertisement No' l/92, d'ated 16'O1'1992 and reiecting her representation dated 16'09 '2OO4 uide order dated

08.10.2OO4 which is impugned, in this Writ Petition'

2. Heard Sri L. Ravichander, iearned Senior Counsel onbehalfofsriBobbiliSrinvas,learnedcounselforpetitioner as well as Sri P. Bhanu Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of University' Having heard learned counsel on either side and 3. having perused the material on record, it is discernible that University issued notification dated t6-'Ol '1992 to fill up one post of Professor, one post of Reader and two posts of Lecturer in Commerce. Note (iii) of the said notilication states that 'if any more vacancies arise in the subjects notified, they too may be f-rlled in following the rule of reservation'' Pursuant to the said notification,Dr.G.NarasimhaMurthywasappointedagainstthe notified vacancy of professor; Dr' B' Venkaiah as Reader and another lecturer post occupied by Dr' P' Madhusudhana Rao ) became vacant; thus the Universit5r has to hll-up five posts of kcturers; trvo initially notified vacancies and thret: resultant vacancies. The Selection Committee selected five candidates including petitioner and recommended that the said five selected candidates should be appointed as lecturers in the order shown below: Lecturers in Commerce:

1. Dr. N. Kusuma(OC) 2. Dr.K.V..Janardhan Rao(OC) 3. Ms. M. Satyavathi(Oc) 4. DrP. Umakanth Sharma (OC) 5. Mr. S. Venkateshwarlu (SC) Having considered the said selection list, the Board of Management, in its 17ft Meeting, directed appointment of the above five candidates, but however, the University appointed three selected candidates against the resultant vacancies, shown at Sl.Nos. l, 2 and 5 and for the reasons best known, kept the two notified vacancies unfilled and illegally-deprived petitioner from appointment to the post of Lecturer. When petitioner came to know the same, in 2OO4, she filed Writ Petition No. 12449 of 2OO4; pursuant to the interim order directing to make representation to respondent University, u'hich shoulcl pass appropriate orders, petltloner submitted representation dated 16.O9.2OO4. The University passed the l order impugned rejecting the said representatlon' Subsequently, the said Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous relying on the statement of the University that petitioner was appointed as Associated Professor pursuant to the notification issued in 2O03. In the said Writ Petition, petitioner liled review which was dismissed by order dated

09.08.2019 granting iiberty to challenge the rejection order' Hence, the Writ Petition. But, all through, while admitting that Board of 4. Management approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee to the post of Lecturer, the respondent University has been maintaining that according to notification, l5o/o, 60/o arrd 25o/o posts of Lecturers and Readers were reserved for SC' ST and BC candidates respectively; as per the approval given by the then Board of Management, Dr'N' Kusuma and Dr'K'V' Janardhan Rao belonging to OC category, shown at Sl'Nos' 1 in Commerce against two and 2 were appointed as l€cturers notified posts; Dr.B. Venkaiah (SC) was appointed as Reader in Commerce, as such a post of Lecturer in Commerce was resulted in; as per reservation, 15%o posts of lecturer were to be filled-in by the candidates belonging to SC categorY, hence' Mr. S.Venkateshwarlu, who belongs to Scheduled Castes' was .+ appointed as Lecturer in Commerce; since two OC candidates were already appointed, the candidature of petitioner and Dr P. Umakatnah Sharma, hgured at Sl.Nos. 3 and 4 was not .considered. Even assuming that University filled-in the notified vacancies, as stated by it in the counter-affidavit, with the candidates figured at Sl.Nos. I and 2 and as per roster, candidate shown at Sl.No.5 was recruited in reservation category, in the considered opinion of this Court, still petitioner is entitled to be appointed in any one of the resulting three vacancies of Lecturers, in the light of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, approved therealter by the Board of Management and in particular, Note (iii) that if any more vacancies arises in the subjects notified, they too may be filled as per law and as per [aw. There is no explanation forthcoming from the University, though there are vacancies as on the date of appointment i.e 13.O87.1992 in the department of Commerce, why university in contravention of notification dated

16.01.1992 and Ordinance-ll of the Universit5r which says that recommendations made by the Selection Committee would be valid for one year, did not make appointment. This itself would clearly show that petitioner was deprived appointment to the post of kcturer (Commerce). j

5. In this context, the case of petitioner is that from the record furnished under the RTI Act, it is demonstrated that there are total five posts, which include two notified vacancies in PG Centre, Khammam dated 16.01.1992 and three resultant vacancies dated 13.0g. 1992 and, all the vacancies are available as on 13.09. 1gg2 itself, thus, it is clear that there are five vacancies of lecturers to be filled_in under the notification dated 16.01.1992. Further, the University admitted in the impugned rejection order that they filled-in the resurtant vacancies in the departments of Economics, English, Sociologr and public Administration, even in the Department of Commerce, Mr. Venkateshwarlu was appointed against the resultant vacancy; from the record furnished under the RTI Act, the University appointed Dr.N. Kusuma and Dr.K.V Janardhan Rao against the resultant vacancies only and kept the notilied vacancies at pG Centre, Khammam vacant. Taking into consideration the above-stated information obtained under the RTI Act also, it can safely be held that petitioner is entitled to be appointed in the two notified posts.

6. It is the strong case of petitioner that she was subjected to loss of service and salary benefits for 13 years and that owing to pendency of this Writ petition, all the retirement 6 befits which she should get on par with 1992 recruitees are withheld

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the University takes serious objection stating that petitioner, during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 12449 of 2OO4, by which sought appointment as l,ecturer, pursuant to 1992 Notification, was appointed as Lecturer of Business Management in the Department of Commerce and Business Management, on 21.06.2005, hence, seeking appointment pursuant to the previous notification does not hold water. For the reasons stated in the paragraphs supra, the said objection cannot be taken into consideration. Further, in the impugned order, it was also stated ,the University never igrrored your selection, Had there been a vacant post at that time, you too would have had chances of your appointment as Lecturer in Commerce,. At the cost of repetition, it has to be noted that when notification notified two posts of lecturers and when the Selection Committee clearly recommended the names of five candidates for hve posts (two notified and three resultant vacancies) which clarified that there are five vacancies of lecturers in which only three were filled, this Court is not hesitant to hold that there are two vacancies to be hlled_in and 7 the University had acted in deliberate violation of the notilication and filled-in only three resultant vacancies' For the foregoing discussion, this Court inclines to 8. direct the respondent university to appoint petitioner as Lecturer under Notihcation No' I of 1992' g. The Writ Petition is accordingly' allowed' setting aside the rejection order dated 08'lO'20O4' Petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed as Lecturer under Notification No.l of 1992. As it is represented that petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation, the 2"d respondent shall compute her retirement benefits and pension accordingly and release the amounts forthwith.

10. CoqsequentlY, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL' on this WJn""auV, The Twenty Second Day Of January Two Thousand And Twenty Five , \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR S TlON OFFICE R

1. The State of Telangana, ReP.b Education, Secretariat, HYdera v b its Principal Secretary, Department of High ad - 500022

2. The Kakatiya University, Rep.by its Registrar' Vidyaranyapuri' Warangal - s06001

3. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS BOBBILI, Advocate lOPUCl 4.TwoCCstoGPFORHIGHEREDUCATION'HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana. [OUT] One CC to SRI P.BHANU PRAKASH, Advocate tOPUCl 5 6 % Two CD CoPies. BSK HIGH COURT DATED:2210112025 ORDER WP.No.24834 of 2019 Ft\1 S TA /( o 0 5 Fits 2025 C 2 * * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS C0of.' W l I l I