WRIT PETITI ON NO: 39943 OF 2022 v. 1. The State of Telangana

Order

Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, .learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri S. Lakshmi Kanth, learned counsel on record appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri T.Venkat Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Ennamsetty Akhil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2.P YER The Petitioner aooroached this Court seeki o the oraver as under : "To issue a lYrit or direction more particularly one in the in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the high handed action of Respondent No.2 University in issuing the impugned Relieving Order No.650 / A2IKU/2922/ZOO-2022 dated 12.10.2022 by the Respondent No.2 University which the petitioner through letter was served to No.312lUClKUl2o22 dated 13.10.2O22 by the Respondent No.3 which was Post-Facto ratification by the Respondent No.l vide letter No.7019/UElALlzOt9 dated L0.LL.2022 4 5N,l wP No.39943_2022 addressed to Respondent No.2 hereir, pursuant to Termination Order No.431/A2/KU/20L6 d;rl ed 28.06.2016 of Respondent No.2 University as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, vic I rtive of Art 14, 15, 16, 19(1Xg) & 21 of the Constitutior of India and contrary to Sec 18(6), Sec. 19(5)(ii) and t l(6) of the TS Universities Act, 1991 and contrary to th3 resolutions oF Executive Council of Respondent No.2 Unive,r sity in its 130th and 13lst meetings held on 15.11.2019 er c Z6.LL.2OL9, and further contrary to the order dated 28.( 3.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WA No.7651201€, ,:onsequently, set aside / quash the impugned Rt lieving Order No.650/A2IKU/2922/ZOO-2022 dated L2.1t.ZOZ2 and its Post-Facto ratification by the Respondenl No.1 vide its letter No.7019/UE/Atl2}tg dated 10.11.20 2 | addressed to Respondent No.2 herein, pursuant to Terr rrnation Order No.43L/A2/KU/2016 dated 28.06.2016 oF Re;pondent No.2 University and also direct Respondent No,.t & Respondent No.3 to pay all consequential attenda I benefits to Petitioner herein. "

3. The caseoftheo etitioner as Der the avr ments made bv the Detitioner in t e affidavit file bv thr oetitione rln suDDort of the oresent writ oetition i brief is rs u der : (i) The petitioner was appointed as Assi:; ant professor in Zoology Vide Notification No. 2/2009 and join rd service on

01.05,2010 after being duly selected ond app,r :ved by the 5 SN,J wP rlo-39943 2022 Executive Council. These selections were later set aside by the learned Single Judge on 28.02.2011 in W.P' Nos' 12563/2010, 24732/2Ot0 and Ist3B/2OlO, for lack of transparency and absence of quorum. The Division Bench and the Supreme Court

alfirmecl this decision and directed that all recommendations under t{otification No. 2/2009 be placed before a duly constituted Executive Council for fresh approval' (ii) Contrary to these directions, the University placed only the petitioner case before the very same truncated Executive Council on 27-06.2016, which again lacked quorum, and issued a Termination Order dated 28.06'2016' In W'A' No' 765/2016, the Division Bench granted an interim stay on 26.10.2016, leading to the suspension of the termination on

18.11.2016.Subsequently, by G.O'Rt.No. 201 dated LZ'LO'2019, the Government constituted the Class-II members of the Executive council, and the selecticns made through Notifications OTl2OOg and 02/2009 were placed befcre the fully constitutecl Executive Council in its 129th me€ting on 23'10'2019' A Sub- Committee was formed, and its report was considered in the 130th meeting on 15.11.2019, wherein the Executive Council resolved not to approve any of the selections made under Notification No. 2/2009 except one in Library & Information 5 sN,l wP No.l994l 2022 Science, a nd referred the matter to the G ( vern ment on

23.11.2079, where it is still pending. (iii) Despite this referral, and without awaiting the Government's decision, the University, after I roducing the Executive Council resolutions before the Cour , issued the impugned Relieving Order dated 12.10.2022, effe< :ively reviving the invalid Termination Order dated 28.06.2016 T'his action is arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Sections 1B(ri and 19(s)(ii) of the Telangana Universities Act, 1991 and cc rtrary to the directions of the High Court and the Supreme Cc,r rt, as well as the requirement of uniform treatment for all sel lctions u nder Notification No. 2/2009. Aggrieved by the same, :he petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RE RD: (A) The relevant oortion of the ordr r imo

12.LO.2(J22 issued bv the Znrl f€ ! pondent, is extracted hereu n der: "...Later, the State Government of Telarr G.O.Rt.No.201, Higher Education (UE) Depa 12.10.2019 and G.O.Rt.No.207, Higher t: Department, dated 16.10.2019, have nominaterl Class-II (Other Members) in the Executive CoL I University, Warangal, and hence, the full-fle r Council was thereby constituted for fulfilling t 'quorum' as per the provisions of the Act. Su t tana, through tment, dated ucation (UE) :he persons as cil of Kakatiya ged Executive re principle of sequently, the 7 sN,, wP lto,399.{ 3_2022 entire matter along with the proceedings of the Selection Committee(s) of faculty recruitments made through Notifications No.O1/2009 and 02/2009, dated 3U1212009 were placed before the Executive Council at its 129" meeting held on 23.10.2019 for consideration and approval as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court of India, In turn, the Executive Council had resolved to constitute a Sub-Committee of the Executive Council under the Chairmanship of Commissioner of Collegiate Education and Dr. Mudumba Nagendra Babu and Prof. T' Manohar as Members and the Registrar will be the Convener, to go through the proceedings of the selection committee for the notifications of 2009 vis-a-vis the directions of the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court and submit its report. The Executive Council will meet on 14.11.2019 at 11.O0 a.m. to take decision on the basis of the report. Subsequently, the reports of the Sub- Committee were placed before the Executive Council at its 130th (Emergency) meeting held on 15.11.2019, and turn, the ixecutr-ve Council has resolved to approve the observations of the sub-committee of the Executive Council with regard to Notification No.02/2009, and inter alia, resolved not to approve the selections made by the Selection Committee in Zoology Department. In view of the unrest of the Assistant Professors of other departments and based on the representation dated lSlll/20L9 of six (06) Members of the Hon'ble Executive Council, un emergency meeting (131") of the Executive Council especially on this matter was conducted on 26/Lt/2o19. In turn, the Executive Council passed the following resolution: "Resolved that the resolutlons adopted in the meeting of the Executive Council held on t5llv2Dl9 do not merit reviewing as the matter was represented to the Government in terms of Rule-19(2) of the Universities Act. since the Executive Council has not approved the proceedings of the Selection Committee." On the other hand, all the other teachers and their associations concerned had submitted several representations to review the decision of the Executive Council by citing their point of view on the non-approval of their selection committee proceedings at that point of time. In their support, all the teacher-admin istrative officers tendered their resignations to positions that were holding in Kakatiya University by expressing solidarity in their case. In view of the grave situation, the university administration referred the matter to the State Government for decision as per the provislons of Section 19(2) 7 sll,) wP No,39941-2022 entire matter along with the proceedings )1' the Selection Committee(s) of faculty recruitments made th 1 Lrgh Notifications No.01/20O9 and O2/20O9, dated 3t/1212009 rv:.e placed before the Executive Council at its 129" meeting held r n 23.10.2019 for consideration and approval as per the directior; of Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court of India, In turn, thr: :xecutive Council had resolved to constitute a Sub-Committee of the Executive Council under the Chairmanship of Commiss < ner of Collegiate Education and Dr. Mudumba Nagendra B;r,u and Prof. T. Manohar as Members and the Registrar will b,: the Convener, to go through the proceedings of the selection ( )mmittee for the notifications of 20O9 vis-a-vis the directions cf the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court and submit its repc -t. The Executive Council will meet on 14.7t.2079 at 11.00 a.rr to take decision on the basis of the report. Subsequently, the rr ports of the Sub- Committee were placed before the Executive (-, uncil at its 130th (Emergency) meeting held on 15.11.201.!r, and turn, the Executive Council has resolved to approve trr ) observations of the sub-committee of the Executive Coun(.i with regard to Notification No.02/2009, and inter alia, resoh r d not to approve the selections made by the Selection Comr ittee in Zoology Department. In view of the unrest of the Assistant I ofessors of other departments and based on the representation lated l8l1U2019 of six (06) Members of the Hon'ble Exe<:r tive Council, un emergency meeting (131=t) of the Executive Jouncil especially on this matter was conducted on 26/LU2C 19. In turn, the Executive Council passed the following resolut ( n: n the meeting of ) L9 do not merit esented to the l Universities Act, t approved the "Resolved that the resolutions adopted the Executive Council held on 15/ll/..1 reviewing as the matter was re[) Government in terms of Rule-19(2) of t^ since the Executive Council has rl proceedings of the Selection Committee. On the other hand, all the other tr:chers and their associations concerned had submitted several epresentations to review the decision of the Executive Council t) citing their point of view on the non-approval of their sr:l :ction committee proceedings at that point of time. In the r support, all the teach er-ad m in istrative officers tendered th(r - resignations to positions that were holding in Kakatiya Univer;ity by expressing solidarity in their case. In view of the grave situation, the university administration referred the ma _t 3r to the State Government for decision as per the provisiorr of Section 19(2) 9 5N,' wP No.39943_2022 compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and the Supreme Court of India, issued from time to time, to avoid adverse consequences in the future and that it is therefore resolved to authorize the Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor to relieve Dr.G.Rajender and Dr.Ch.Sravanthi, Assistant Professors in Zoology, from the service immediately with payment of salary for the period of work-done and without any terminal benefits since they were already terminated in June 2016 as per the provisions of Section 19(5)(ii) r/w Section 19(6) of the Universities Act, 1991, vide KU Orders No.430 & 431/A2/KU12O16, dated 28106/2016 as per the decision taken by the Executive Council at the 11sth meeting held on 27 /06/2016, but continued in service with interim stay orders subject to final judgment in all these years due to the pendency of Writ Appeal No.765 /2016, and subsequently, this full-ledged Executive Council at the 130th meeting held on LsllLlzolg did not approve the selections in Zoology Department also, and in the a'bsence of any decision taken and communicated by the State Government as per section 19(5)(ii) of Telangana State Universlties Act, 1991 on the file of KU Letter No.926 / A2 | KU / 20 t9, dated 23 / t U 20 t9. In pursuance of the above said resolutions of the Executive Council, the Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor has now ordered for the cancellation of KU Orders No.735/A2/KU/2016, dated L8/]-U2OL6 and hence, hereby relieved Dr.Ch.Sravanthi from the service of Assistant Professor in Zoology, Kakatiya University, Warangal. with immediate effect with payment of salary, if any due, for the work-done period and without any terminal benefits. The Drawing and Disbursing Officer concerned of the University shall prefer the salary bills of Dr.Ch.Sravanthi for the work-done period, if any due, only after passing and recording of the bills by the Audit Officer (Pre-Audit), Kakatiya University, subject to recovery of all the dues from and claims against Dr.Ch. Sravanthi, if any as per the records, and then only, payments shall be made to her accordingly under intimation to the university authorities." (B) Ter e itio 2 he nd f n o is extracted here nder: \-< 10 5N,l wP No 19941 2022 "ln the reference 1't cited Kakatiya Uni\ srsrty Warangal has called for applications from qualified candi( i tes tor the post of Asst. Professors and Associate professors n its faculties. Accordingly vide ref 2nd cited Dr. CH. Sra,/ rnthi has been selected and appointed as Asst. professor in Ztt ogy. Upon her selection and appointment Dr. M. Damayanthi )/o Harishankar and Dr. Vinatha Naini W/o Kota Satya Narayanr Reddy filed Wp No. 24732 of 2010 and 12563 of 2010 respe,: ivety in Hon,ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide ref 3,d ited has passed orders setting aside the selection and appoinlr tent of Dr. CH. Sravanthi, observing that the selection and app,t ntment suffered from illegality and vitiated on counts more thar one. Aggrieved by the above orders Dr. CH. Sravanthi preferre J a Wrii Appeal no. 234 and 235 of 2011 before the division h ench of Hon'ble High Court. Vide the reference 4th cited the j vision bench of Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said apt eal. Again the incumbent preferred SLp (C) No. 13g27 of :C15 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Vide refererr:e 5th cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India disposed the ;Lp stating that directions of the division bench does not call for lhe interference. Meanwhile, Dr. Vinatha Naini filed cont3 npt case in CC 246 of 2016 in Hon'ble High Court for non irr plementation of division bench orders in respect of selection anc appointment of Dr. CH Sravanthi D/o CH Sammaiah. Vide reference 7rh cited the SpL CS t ) Govt. Higher Education Dept. has issued instructions to l) ace the matter before the executive council afresh and compl rte the process. Accordingly the matter has been placed be .ore the 115th Executive Council and the Executive Council l- as resolved the following: "In compliance to Court directions tf Hon,ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra pradesh states i r Wp No. 1513g and 24732 of 2010 and in W.A. Nos. 233 to i 35 of 2011 and 1553 to 1555 of 2013 and Hon,ble Supreme Cor rt orders in SLp (C) 13827 of 2015 and the directions of the (; rvt. through the Lr. No.3601/UE/2015-2, dt. 28.05.2016 it is r:;olved to iancel the approval of the BTth Executive council regarc ing the approval of the selection committee recommendataons oJ Dr. Gowda Rajender and Dr. CH Sravanthi only". In view of the resolution of Executive (1 ,uncil under the powers vested in it's under section 19 (s)(ii) rr ad with 6 of Ap Universities Act 4 of 1991 adopted by the St€ te of Telangana thus the services of Dr. CH Sravanthi, D/o ( I - Sammaiah are hereby terminated with immediate effect.,, 11 sN,l wP No.39943 2022

5. The learned nior desionated counsel aDDeaflno on behalf of the oetitioner mai nlv outs forth the followino submissions: (i) The order impugned in the present writ petition dated

72.10.2022 and its Post-Facto ratification by the Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 1.0.LL.2022 addressed to the Respondent No.2 herein, pursuant to the termination order dated 28.06.2016 issued by Respondent No.2 University against the petitioner is contrary to the observations of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19.03.2015, particularly at paragraph No.43 passed in W.A.No.233 to 235 of 2011 and 1553 to 1555 of 2013 and WA Cross Objections (SR) No.112907 of 2011. The Division Bench specifically directed, at paragraph No.43 of the said ludgment, that the recommendations of the Selection Committee of the Respondent University be placed before the Executive Council, as contemplated under Section 18(6) of the Act, for its approval. Instead of placing all the recommendations of Selection Committee pursuant to Notification No'2/2009, in a hurried manner a Termination Order dated 28.06.2016 had been issued and the same is not in compliance with the orders of the Division bench of this Court dated 19.03,2016 passed in W'A.No.233 t0 235 of 2011 and 1553 to 1555 of 2013 as confirmed by the Apex 12 sN,l wP N.J 19941 2022 Court vide SLP (C) No.13827 of 2015 and SLt (C) No.14033 of

2015. (ii) The requirement under Section t 3(6) of the T.S. Universities Act, 1991 had not been comptied vith. The quorum for meeting of the Executive Council shall br: one third of the total number of members or six persons, r rhichever is less whereas the quorum consisted of only four me r rbers at the time of the BTth meeting held on 30.04.2010. (iii) The impugned Relieving Order date r t2.1O.2022 was issued by referring to the Termination Order r ated 28.06.2016 while duly cancelling the Suspension Order c ated 08.11.2016 which had been issued in compliance with :he order dated

26.1O.2016 passed I.A.No.1 of 2016 in W.A.No., 65 of 2016. (iv) The Termination Order dated 28.06 , 016 suffers from the same Legal infirmity which was under che I enge before this Court as it is was passed by a truncated Execut ve Council as on the date of the impugned Order of Terminatior, ,and is therefore nonest in the eye of law. (v) The termination order dated 28.06,: 016 pursuant to a Resolution dated 27.06.2016 to which the inr rlrgned Relieving Order dated 12.10.2022 refers, is nonest in the ,:ve of Law, since 13 sN,l vJ? o i9941_m22 the purport of the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by this Court in W.A.No.765 of 2016 was to irnplement the Resolutions passed by the Executive Council in its 13Oth meeting held on 15.11.2019. (vi) The resolution passed by the Executive Council, rnore particularly in respect of selections and appointnrents made pursuant to the Notification No.2 of 2009, were not approved, except one selection made in the Department of Library and Information Science. (vii) The Respondent No.2 University was under obligation to issue appropriate orders terminating the services of all the appointees under Notification No.2 of 2009. That being so, the University had chosen to discord only one candidate i.e., the petitioner herein, but however the fact remains that the Respondent No.2 University lost its power and jurisdiction to issue any Termination Order, as the matter was referred to the Government on 23.11.2019 and is still pending consideration. (viii) The issuance of impugned Relieving Order dated

12.10.2022, which is communicated to the petitioner through Respondent No.3 vide its letter dated 13.10.2022 vis-tr-vis the Terrnination Order dated 28.06.2016, is without jurisdiction. L4 sN,l lvp No-39943 2022 (ix) The impugned order dated 12.10.202. issued by the Respondent No.2 University depicts that the Ex,-.:utive Council, by virtue of its powers vested in it under Act 4 of 1991, decided to Terminate and Relieve the Petitioner fronr the Kakatiya University services invoking the powers under Se(l ons 19(6) and 19(5xii) of the Act of 1991. As per Section 19(5r (ii) of Act 4 of 1991, if the Executive Council differs from the Rec )mmendations of the Selection Committee, it has to refer the matter to the State Government, whose decision shall be final, In the instant case, the Executive Council, by its decision takr n in its 130th Meeting held on 15.11.2019, addressed a etter to the Respondent No.1 on 23.11.2019 seeking final de<:i ;ions, which is still awaited. Admittedly no reply from the State (; rvernment has been communicated till date. (x) The Disciplinary action against in-serv < e Teachers for violation of Code of Conduct cannot be made a: rlicable in the case of the petitioner, whose selection is undr:r scrutiny and review by the Executive Council of the Universi y, and is also pending before the State Government. (xi) The impugned Termination order indica:es that it was issued in compliance with the orders of the Hon'l ,le High Court I 1 15 and the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the Respondent University curiously passed the impugned termination order without considering the Judgments in their true spirit. (xii) The Ordinance No.lI of the University is of no relevance to the existing procedure of selection of the University Teachers outlined by the UGC Regulations issued by the Statutory Regulatory Body from timc to time. Based on the aforesa id submissions the learned r unse! r r e writ allowed as orav d for. In suoDort of the ca of the etitione r. the lea ned co nsel Dl ced reli nce on the sent r desiqnated Cou rt Cases 359 in UNHA Y MMED A D OTHE Sv u re STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER". 6 r c s sel a nd3 b u submisslons : 16 sN.l wP No-19941 2022 (i) In compliance to the directions of tlr: Hon.ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, under [), rra-43 of the judgment in W.A.No.233/20I1 and batch, ilr: full fledged Executive Council of the respondent university, it fulfillment of the provisions of Section 18(6) of the TS Univer:; :ies Act, 1991, at its 130th (Emergency) meeting held cr 15.11.2019, disapproved the selections made in the Departn t nt of Zoology, along with the selections made in other subjects, in pursuant to the Notification No.0212009, dated 3L.lZ.2OOg, tnd hence the said decision neither called for nor required the university administration to refer the cases of all Assist tnt professors recruited in the year 2010. (ii) The State Government. vide

06.02.2012, had already communicated letter dated its i dvice to the Respondent University, to set aside the ;election and appointments of Assistant professors in the l) rpartments of Bio-technology and Zoology, based on the findings and recommendations of the Two-Member Committee constituted as per the powers vested with the Government unc( r Section g(1) of the Universities Act, 1991. 77 (iii) The request of the tespondent university, vicie KU Letter No.926/A2/KU/2019, dated 23.LL.2019, seekirig Government decision against the resolution dated 15.11.2019 passed by the Executive Council, was unwarranted undei- the provisions of Section 19 of the 'l-S Urriversities Act, 1991. (iv) In terms of Section 18 (6) of the T.S. Universities Act, 1991, the quorum of Executive Council meeting lvas not fulfilled, and hence this Court declared that the seiection and appointment of the petitioner herein and Dr.G.Rajender of the Zoology Department suffer from illegality. Subsequently, in pursuance of the decision of the Executive Council at its 115th meeting held on 27.06.20L6, the petitioner herein and Dr. G. Rajender of the same Department were terminated in compliance witlr the judicial orders of this Court and as per the decision/instruction s of the State Government vide Government Letter dated 28.05.2015. (v) In view of the fact that the Hon'ble Court had declared the selection and appointment of the petitioner and another candidate in the Department of the Zoology as illegal and vitiated on more than one ccutrt, the Executive Council, at its 130th meeting, approved the observations of its Sub-Committee 18 5N,l wP No.1994l_?022 appointed to enquire into the proceedings of all the Selection Committees, and accordingly, disapproved the sele :tions made in the petitioner's department of zoology. (vi) The only requirement, as per para-4: of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in V.A.No.233 of 2011, to be fulfilled in terms of section 18(6) retcl with section 19(5)(ii) of the Act, was that the university admiri;tration should seek approval and confirmation of their appointm( nts with effect from the respective dates of appointment. (vii) The full-fledged Executive Council at its 130th meeting held on 15.11.2019, did not approve tr l selections in Zoology Department. In the absence of any deci,ion taken and communicated by the State Government under !;, ction 19(5)(ii) of Telangana State Universities Act, 1991, the te,.r rination of the services of the petitioner on 28.06.2016, in ptrrsuance to the decision taken by the Executive Council at its 111;,meeting held on 27.06.2016, was in compliance with the orde -s of the High Court, in view of the Contempt Proceedings of tir High Court in C.C.llo.246/2016 vide KU Orders No.43t/A?./N U/2016 dated

28.06.2016. 19 (viii) The directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court under para-43 had been duly complied with in respect of the selection and appointment of Assistant Professors in the Zoology Department and the lacuna pointed by the petitioners stood cured and therefore, the petitioner has no ground to seek review or to demand a decision from the State Government on the letter dated 23.11.2019. (ix) The Executive Council at its 140th meeting held on

29.09.2022, in view of judicial orders and the decisions taken earlier particularly with respect to the department of Zoology and also considering the pendency of Contempt Case No.2144/2018 filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.12563 of 2010 seeking implementation of the orders dated 19.03.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.233 of 2011 and Batch, passed the resotution pertaining to the discontinuation of the services of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said resolution, orders had been issued relieving the petitioner from the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology of the Respondent University with immediate effect, with payment of salary for the period worked and without any terminal benefits. The Government subsequently ratified the resolutions of the 140th Executive Council relieving 20 SN,I wP No.l994l 202, the petitioner herein and one Dr. Gouda Rajenrl :r from service as Assistant Professors in Zoology of the Respond _. rt University. (x) The Executive Council is the supr rme authority to take decisions relating to appointment, susp€ r sion, removal or dismissal of the teaching and non-teaching r mployees of the respondent University as per the powers / )sted under the provisions of the T.S. Universities Act, 1991. Based on the aforesa id submi ssior s, the lear counsel aooeartno o behalf of Reso ond€ t Nos. I d contended that there is no illeq al itv in the rrder imou ndthe writ etitaon need to be disl rissed. D ON DC CLU N

7.A rusal of the record ind ir rates that the lear ed Sin le Judoe vide Judoment da ed 28. t

2.20 11 a 6 in W. N I .har the selectron and aooo intmen t of the Deti roner on the fol!owinq o rou nds: t 20L I dseta side o v I The Selection of the petitioner is in cle. I violation of the prescribed binding norms contarned in Cr Jinance No.II of the University, which mandatorilv required the ZL 5l/,1 wP No.19943 2022 maintenance of written records separate assessment of the comparative nnerits of the each candidate and 'expression of opinion' by each member of the Selection Committee. II. The father of the petitioner, Di-.Ch. Sammaiah, being the Chairman, Board of Studies, ZoologY of the University, was a member of the Selection Committee which undertook interviews for effecting promotions under the 'Career Advancement Scheme' in Zoology, during the morning session of 20.04.2010. In the afternoon session at the same day, the selection committee interviewed candidates for the post of Assistant Professor. Hence, Dr. Sammaiah, being the petitioner's father, wielded influence in favour of the petitioner during the selection process. III. The recommendations of the selection committee were placed before BTth Meeting of the Executive Council held on

30.04.2010, which fell short of the required quorum. Consequentiy, the approval of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, leading to the impugned appointment, was vitiated on this count' IV. 1'he petitioner as well as the respondent - Kakatiya University preferred writ appeal vide W.A.Nos.233 to 235 of 2011 and batch, which were dismissed vide ludgment 22 5N,.) wP No,39941 2022 dated 19.03.2015. The Division Bench upht:i 1 ground No.1 and ground No.3 of the learned Single Judgr: it is agreed with ground No.2 as well. l,r selection and appointment of petitione Judgment and cordingly, the - had been reiterated and confirmed to be illegal. The petitioner preferred a SLp No.13827 of I )15 and batch before the Apex Court and the Apex Cour held that the directions of the Divisir W.A.Nos.233 of 2013 and batch, did not categorically n Bench in ca ll for a ny interference while reiterating that the direc.i )ns conta ined in Para 43, requiring the selections of all th: departments, including zoology to be placed before a full r uorum of the Executive Council, should be carried out ex ) )ditiously and in view of the fact as borne on record that ttr r Judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.p.No.12563 of 2010 and batch, which had held the selection and app()l rtment of the petitioner to be invalid, had attained finality. VI. In view of the fact that in compliance wir;l the specific directions of the Division Bench of this Cor t at para-43 and the observations of the Apex Court, th: selections of all the departments, including zoology, were the full quorum of Executive Council llaced before rt its 1 30th 23 sN,l wP No.l99.l 2022 (Emergency Meeting) and consequently, the selection and appointment of the petitioner had been held to be illegal. VII The Termination order dated 28.06.2016 issued by the Registrar of Kakatiya University to the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.22835 of 2016, which was dismissed vide orders dated 21.07.2016. The Writ Appeal preferred in W.A.No.765 of 2016 was disposed of vide order dated 28.03.2022, wherein categorical observations were made against the University for continuing the petitioner and another identically placed candidate despite the lacuna pointed out earlier having been cured in the year 2019 itself by the full quorum Executive Council in its 13Oth meeting, which had held that all the selections, including that of petitioner herein, were vitiated for violation of ordinance-II. This Court opines that there is no illegality in the orders impugned passed in the present writ petition.

8. The impugned relieving order dated 12.10.2022 is only a consequential order to the Termination Order dated 28.06.2016. The directions of the Division Bench in W.A.No.765 of 2016, wherein the validity of the termination was adjudicated, had not been challenged further and the same attained Finality on 24 sN,.l wP No 19941 2022

28.03.2022 itselF, as the petitioner has not i ssaited the said order till date. This Court opines that the Reli€\ ing Order issued on 72.1O.2022, being merely consequential in ature cannot be questioned independently especially when th(, s,ubject issue in respect oF termination has already attained fir 3lity. This Court further opines that the impugned orders warra^. no interference as no legal right subsists in favour of the pet t oner. Once the selection and appointment of the petitioner hl j been judicially adjudicated and held to be illegal, and such f r r irg has attained finality, the petitioner cannot claim any legal riq rt to the post oF Assistant Professor in Zoology. In the absenc: of a legal right there can be no infraction thereof.

9. This Court opines that, the petitionr r having been appointed through an illegal mode of selection and appointment as held by this Court, car not have any grievance that the petationer,s relieving fr< m service was not in accordance to the prescribed procedt re.

10. In AMRIT YADAV v. THE TATE OFJI \R HAND AND oTHERS !n CIVIL APPEAL NO( s).139 o-1:9 Th Aoex Court a Dara Nos. 34 to 37. obser / as u nder: o24 OF t 25 sN,l wP No-19941 20:2 -34. With respect to the power of cancellation of the entire selection process, this Court in M.P. State Coop . Bank Ltd. v Nan uram Yadav (2007) I SCC 264 held thus:- "24. It is clear that in the matter of public appointments, the following principles are to be followed: (1) The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under the rules/govern ment circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment. (3) An appointment made in violation of lhe mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualificatlon wouid be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation. (4) Those who come by back door should go through that door. (5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the itituto.y power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules. (6) The court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathY. (7) If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive. affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither tre possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notice to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. (8) When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual Innocence has no place and the entire selection has to be set aside."

35. Thus, it is clear that once the appointment process ls declared to be a nullity in law, every action taken in furtherattce of such appointment process is also illegal, and, therefore, the constitutional courts have jurisdiction to set aside such appointments wholly and ab-initio. This power of the Court is 26 5N,.) WP No 39941 2022 not curtailed even in a situation where a thir< -party right has been created in those who have been offerel appointment or have even joined the service.

36. This Court in State of U.P.v.U P. St 1 Officers' Assn..(1994) 2 SC C 204 while dealing with the t ack-door entries in public appointment observed as under: - " 19. ... The appointments may, therefo considerations other than merit and provision to prevent such appointment:. appointment is indeed not calculated tc meritorious alone will always be appoin appointments made will not be on cons than merit. In the absence of appointments may be made purely on p€ r considerations, and be arbitrary. This beir come to be appointed by such arbitrat) hardly complain if the termination of their equally arbitrary. Those who come by th: to go by the same door. This is more so \v appointment itself stipulates that the terminable at any time without assigr i Such appointments are made. accepted by both sides to be purely professional e they last. The fact that they are made t cannot vest them with additional I appointment made to a public office, horv not necessarily vested with public sarr therefore, no public interest involverl appointments irrespective of their rrc inception some engagements and contrir, product of the operation of the spoils syst be no legal anxiety to save them.,, e, be made on here exists no The method of :nsure tha t the ed or that the derations other luidelines, the ;onal or political g so those who procedure can ,appointment is back door have len the order of rppolntment is q any reason. rnd understood 'rgagements till y public bodies anctity. Every oever made, is tity. There is, in saving all le. From the ts may be the rm. There need 37, It is, therefore, clear that a procedure cannot claim proper treat come at the receiving end.,, beneficiary rf a back-door ment as pe r law when they

11. This Court opines that Article 14 does tot envisage negative inequity and has no positive aslr:ct and the petitaoner cannot claim negative inequity rivl ren nq J.ra; right exast in favour of the petitioner. .i&u ' +aii -.i"S 27 sN,l

12. This Court opines that the petataoner cannot contend that the Relieving Order issued to the petitioner is not as per procedure when the very selection and appointment of the petitioner had been held to be illegal.as it would not make any difference to the petitioner's case since appointment having been made dehors the statutory rules and being nullity in the eye of law.

13. The Apex Court in the Judoment reoorted in 2o18) ( 15 SuDreme Court Cases 463 in "UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH", at Da ra 24 observed as under: "24. In para 30 of the reported decision, the Court adverted to the exposition in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India which evolved the "useless formality" theory. It is apposite to reproduce paras 30 to 32 of the reported judgment, which read thus : (Y. Token Singh case, SCC pp.75-76) "30. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India this Court developed the "useless formality" theory stating : (SCC pp. 246-47, para 22) '22. ... More recently Lord Bingham has deprecated the "useless formality" theory in R. v. Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police Forces, ex p Cotton by giving six reasons. (See also his article "Should Public Law Remedies be Discretionary?" 1991 PL, p.64. A detailed and emphatic criticism of the "useless formality theory" has been made much earlier in "Natural lustice, Substance or Shadow" by Prof. D.H. Clark of Canada (see 1975 PL, pp. 27 -63) contending that Malloch and Glynn were wrongly decided. Foulkes (Administrative Law, Bth Edn., 1996, p. 323), Craig (Adminlstrative Law, 3rd Edn., 28 sN,l p. 596) and others say that the ccL what is to be decided by the decisior De Smith (5th Edn., 1994, paras 10.t courts have not yet committed the I view though discretion is always w t (Administrative Law, 5th Edn., 199.1, that while futile writs may not be issr- < to be made according to the nature of in relation to cases other than thilse r or indisputable facts, there is a consid€ opinion whether the applicant can be that the outcome will be in his favour c case of subqtance or if he can prove l success or if he is entifled to relief e I remote chance of success. We may, that even in cases where the facts art: beyond dispute, there is a considerabll courts can, in exercise oF their certiorari, prohibition, mandamus r) though natural justice is not followed, that there is yet another line of cases i Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, Rajendra Sirrr that even in relation to statutory 1l notice, a distinction is to be made be t the provision is intended for individua a provision is intended to protect pul) former case, it can be waived while i Iatter, it cannot be waived.' 31. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (i was held : (SCC p. 505, para 5) t cannot prejudge -making authority. 31 to 10.036) says selves to any one r the court. Wade pp. 526-30) says C, a distinction has t1e decision. Thus, )rating to admitted -able divergence of ompelled to prove 'he has to prove a "reaI likelihood" of ,n if there is some owever, point out -tot all ad m itted or u na nimity that the iscretion", refuse injunction even Ve may also state s in Stafe Bank of h v. State of M.P. lvisions requiring veen cases where lenefit and where c interest. In the r the case of the 102) 4 SCC 503 ir re termination ot sh, the orders of ers are not va lid. e a nullity, the :;ples of natu ra I '5. ... It is clear that if after t services of the said Dr K.C. Ral(. appointment aie issued, such orr If such appointment orders tl question of observance of prir justice would not a rise., 32. In Bar Council of India v. H c 1 Court of Kerala (2004) 6 SCC 311 it was stated: SCC p. 3n,i;r; 4s) '45. ... Principles of natural _ tstice, however, cannot be stretched too far. Thei application may be subject to the provisions rf a statute o'r statutory rule., 29 sN,l wp No-19941 2022 In the present case, the appointment letter was admittedly issued without the approval of the competent authority."

14. The Ao x Court Judqm nt in 'STATE OF WEST NGAL HAKHI BH YA c AND OTH RS", reoorted in 2 25 INSC 437, at oa ra 45 EE observed as under: "45. The last question relates to the relief and whether it requires any modification. We find no valid ground or reason to interfere with the direction of the High Court that the services of tainted candidates, who are appointed, must be terminated, and they should be required to refund any sa la ries/payments received. Since their appointments were the result of fraud, thls amounts to cheating. Therefore, we see no justification to alter this direction. "

15. A ex co 200 Suore e Court Case

264. an M.P STATE COOPR ATIVE BANK LIMTTED, BHOPAL v. N NURAMYADA AND OTHE at oara No.24 observed as under: '24. It is clear that ln fhe matter of public appointmenfs, the following principles are to be followed: (1) The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under the ru les/govern ment circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment. (3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would 30 5N, ) wP No-19943 2022 be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot tr cured by taking recourse to regularization. (4) Those who come by back door ,hould go through that door. (5) No regularization is permissibl( statutory power conferred under Article 162 of India if the appointments have been made the statutory rules. n exercise of the ,f the Con stitution 'r contravention of (6) The court should not exercise ts jurisdiction misplaced sympathy.

16. The Apex Court in the Judoment rerl rted in (2O19) 19 Suore e Court Cases, 626, i N ..STATE I) F ODISHA AND n ANOTH ER v. ANUP KUMAR SEN APATI ANI) ANOTHER", At Dara Nos. 39 and 4O observed as under: "39. It was lastly submitted that concerninc orders have been passed by the Tribunal, wh t the High Court and grants-in-aid have been r 1994 Order as such on the ground of a parity not interfere. No doubt, there had been a di',, on the aforesaid issue. Be that as it may. In c t no concept of negative equality under 1 Constitution. In case the person has a ri(ll treated equally, but where right is not availatrl claim rights to be treated equally as the ri(ll negative equality when the right does nol cla im ed. 4O. In Basawaraj v. LAO (2013) 14 SCC 81. t was held thus (SCC p.85, pa raS) rther persons, the 'r was affirmed by :leased under the this Court should rgence of opinion r opinion, there is ticle 14 of the t, he has to be ) a person cannot t does not exist, exist, cannot be "8. It is a settled legal proposition th. t Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuat(, llegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisic r ; made in other cases. The said provlsion does not ( rvisage negative equality but has only a positive asp(,( t. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have t,r en granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by misti I e, such an order does not confer any legal right on other to get the same reljef as well. If a wrong is committed i| tn earlier case, it 31 sN,l wP No.1994l :022 cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. "

17. TAKING INTO C ONSIDERATION: A) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, B) The submissions made by the learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, C) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2"d and 3'd respondents, D) The order dated 2A.O2.2OL1 passed in W.P.Nos.12563, 15138 and24732 of 2010, E) Section 18 (6) of A.P. Universities Act, 1991, sN,l wp No 19941-2022 F) The Judgment dated 19'03.2O 16 passed in W.A.No.233 of 2O13 and batch, in particular, paras 14 and 43 (referred to and extracted above), G) The Judgment dated 11.05.201!; passed in SLP No.13827 of 2015, H) The order dated 21.07.2O1. i passed in W.P.No.22835 of 2016, I) The resolution dated 15.11. 2019 of the Executive Council at its 13oth meeting, J) The Division Bench order dat:d 2a.O3.2O22 passed in W.A.No.765 of 2016, K) The Resolution of the Executivr: Council dsated

29.O9.2022 at its 140th meeting, L) The order impugned dated 12. LO.2O22 issued by the 2"d respondent herein relieving thr: petitioner from service with immediate effect with paynt :nt of salary if any due for the work done period a n C without any terminal benefits, (referred to and extracte d above) M) The Division Bench order of j: ris Court dated O6.Oa.2O24 passed in W.A.No.27O ot 2O24 rnd batch, 33 5N,, v/P llo-1992!3-2022 This Court opines that the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed in the present writ petition, since ttre present writ petition has beelr filed challerlging the relieving order dated L2.LO.?-O22 which was issued in pursuance to termination order rtated 28.O6.2016' The petitioner irad already fiied W.P.No.22a35 of 2016 challenging the termination order dated 28'06'2016, which was dismissed on 2L.O7-2(J!6, and the said dismissal had been upheld by the Division Bench of thi'; Court in W.A.No.765 of 2016 dated 28.03.2022. In view of the same, the present writ petition challenging the relieving order dated L2.LO-2O22 is not maintainable, as the said relieving order was passed in pursuance to the termination order dated 28.06.2016, which has attained finality in W.P.No.22835 of 2O16 and W.A.No.765 of 2016' This Court, further taking into consideration the fact that the impugned relieving order dated L2'LO'2O22 and its Post Facto ratification by the respondent No'1 vide tetter dated t0.L1,.2O22 addressed to the respondent No'2 herein, pursuant to thc termination order dated 28.06.2016 issued by the respondent No'2 University issued against the petitioner, had not been stayed by this 34 5N,l Court, though the writ petition was fited in r:l re year 2022, is not inclined to interfere with the orders inr rugned dated 12.10.2022 and 1O.11.2U22 on the grou nd that the petitioner had not been put to prior notice b :fore passing of the orders impugned dated tZ.I.O.zO:ll and dated 70.L1.2022. ,the This Court further opines that, in view o fact that the order of termination has attained fir ality by the dismissal of the Writ petition filed by the pet i :ioner as well as the Writ Appeal preferred against the sair order, there cannot be a second round of proceeding rn the same subject issue, as the same would operate as Res judicata bctween the parties. . Accordingly, the Writ petition is disrr issed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendirr, I shail stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. B.REKHA RANI ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR '../. (:/ SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SURI: 'ALLI NANDA (For Her LadYshiPs Kind Perusal) To,

1. One CC to SRI S.LAKSHMI KANTH, Advocate [OPU(; 2. One CC to SRI ENNAMSETTY AKHIL, Advocate [OP - ::] 3. One CC to SRI T.VENKAT REDDY, SC FOR KU [OP - ]l 4. Two CCs to THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, High ( 'ourt for Telangana, at -llYd erabad [OUT] the State of -;ld

5. 11 LR Copies 6. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. I TheSecretary,TelanganaAdvocatesAssociation,Library,HighCourt Buildings, Hyderabad. Two CD Copies w 7 8 BSR TKS i I I i I HIGH COURT DATED: 3011012025 t \ ORDER WP.No.39943 of 2022 CC TODAY . .: ::r- : U r.ripi, \.* c,^...,.o 1 APR 2Il7[ (r- JI .1... ri. a) <) * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ga. .rp(.A &t. f, i i I i I t i i I I