Miss.Nasreen Sultana v. The State of Telangana

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order of the Honble Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3863812018 dt.11- 03-2024 and to consequently direct the official respondents 1 to 4 to absorb/reg ularize the services of the Petitioner/Appellant as Lecturer in Zoology by redeploying to any other Government colleges with all consequential benefits with arrears of difference of pay w.e.f .01-07-2008 Counsel for the Appellant : SRI SADU RAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondents No.5&6 : SRI SRINIVAS CHAMARTHY W.A.No.1320 OF 2024 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against order Daled 1110312024 in WP.No. 38560 of 2018 on the file of the High Court Between: ttrliss Ativa Bequm. D/o Mohd Khursheed Ahmed, Aged about 50 years,Occ Un- AiOeO L6cturer- rn Botany in Mumtaz College (Minorrty Aided lnstitution),^ Malakpet, HvalraOaO R/o.H No.3-5 7B2t1Ol1. Gauf Bunglow, King Koti Hyderabad- 29 ...APPELLANT AND 1 . The State of Telangana Rep by its Princrpal Secretary, Higher Education Department. Secretariat Butldlngs Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department. Secreiariat Buildings Hyderabad.

3. The Commtssioner of Collegiate Education, Government of Telangana, Nampally Hyderabad

4. The Regional Joinl Director of Collegiate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad 5. The Principal, lvlumtaz College (Minority Aided lnstitution), Malakpet Hyderabad 6 The Secretary and Correspondent, Mumtaz College (Minority Aided lnstitution), Malakpet. Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circu.nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to set aside the order of the Hon'ble Learned Single Judge in w.P.No 38560/2018 dt.11- 03-2024 and to consequently direct the official respondents 1 to 4 to absorb/reg u la rize the services of the Petitioner Appellant as Lecturer in Botany [y redeploying to any other Government colleges with all consequential benefits with arrears of difference oI pay w'e'f '12-08-2005 Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SADU RAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondents No'5&6 : SRI SRINIVAS CHAMARTHY The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT ? o THE HON'ELE.THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUXA YARA 320 0F 20]24 1 Nos. 1318 WRIT AP COMMON JUDGM ENT (per the Hon'ble the Acting ChieJ Justice) Sri Sacl ut Ra-1e sr'r'ara Reddy' learned counsel for the appellants; Leartred Government Pleader for Serrrices-l appearing for responrlellt Nos l to 4 and Sr1 Srinivas Chamarthy' learned counsel for respondent Nos'5 and 6'

2. Regard being had to the stmilitude of the qttestions involved' on the join t re quest of the parties' the matters \\'ere ana-Iogously heard on admrssion and decided by this common judgment' 3. These intra-Court appeals take exception to the common order datecl 11.o3,2o2+ passed irr W.P.Nos.3855O and 38638 of

4. Brieflr. stated, the relief claimed by the appellants (writ petitioners) \\'as to issue a u'rit of mandamus declaring the inaction of the rcspondents in absorbing thr:ir Services from un-aidecl lecturer posts to clear aided vacant posts of lecturers' despite availaoili$' of ciear aided vacant posts of lecturers' as arbitrall' and bad rn lalr' and consequentiy to direct the respondents to absorb the apPellants' services against the clear TI 2 HACJ & RY,J WAs 1318 & 1,32O of 2024 aided vacant posts of lecturers in the respondents No.5 and 6 _ College (hereinafter referred to ?S, uthe College,,) with all consequential benefits with effect from 12.Og.2005.

5. Before the writ Court, the Government and the College filed their counters and a common stand was taken that the College is a private un-aided institution. The College, in its counter, categorically pleaded that initially it was getting some grant_in_aid for some posts. However, the College subsequently decided to run the institution on 'self-finarlce' basis and accordingly self-finance courses were introduced. Consequently, the College surrendered the aided posts in the year 2018 and there existed no aided post in the College.

6. In the counter fi1ed by the Government, it was stated that the appeilants were appointed against unaided posts by a private management. The appellants cannot be absorbed against the aided posts in the absence of existence of any such posts.

7. Learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, opined that the appellants were appointed as lecturers against un-aided posts and the Coliege has surrendered the grant-in-aid posts in the year 20 18. Importantly, the learned Single Judge noticed that the -t I I 3 HACJ & RY,J WAs_1318 & 1,320 of 2024 appellants har.e not chosen to file their appo jntment orders to demonstrate \\'hether thev were appointed and working against any aided posts

8. Learned Single Judge further opined that the appellants were working against un-aided posts and all the ztided posts were surrendered br. the College. Thus, no relief is due to the appellants 9 Learned counsel for the appellants criticized the aforesaid findings b1' conter.rding that the appellants harze categorically pleaded that tht:.v *,ere u,orking in the College, which is an Aided Minority College, and thev u,ere working against aided posts and therefore, the u,rit petitions were maintainable ulrder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10 Learned counsel for the appellants, by placing reliarce on the rejoinder filed b_v the appellants to the counter hled by the Government in the u,rit petitions, urged that the writ petitions u,ere not only maintainable, in view of Article 3O( 1) of the Constitution of india, the r,r,rit petitions should have been a_1lowed. { 4 $ ! n 4 HACJ & RY,I WAs 1318 &1120 of 2024 He placed reliance on the 3udgmerrt of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Collegiate Education v. R.Srinivasl.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Government and the Iearned counsel for the College supported the order of the learned Single Judge.

12. The parties have conhned their arguments to the extent indicated above arrd no other point is pressed.

13. At the outset, this Court requested the learned counsel for the appellarrts to file the appointment orders of the appellants to bolster his submission that the appellants were working against aided posts. We wonder to notice the reluctance with which our request was turned dou,n by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Single Judge has already observed that for the reasons best known to the appellalts, they have not filed the appointment orders.

14. The categorical stand of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that the appellants w-ere not working against aided posts. We find no reason to disbelieve the said stand because if the appellants were working against aided posts qnd ' (zoro) tl scc +oo 5 HAO & RY,J WAs 1318 & 1320 of 2024 appointment orders reflectlng the same, the appellants would have certainly filed the same. The relief claimed in the writ petitions was to absorb the appellants from un-aided lecturers to clear aideci vacant posts. Thus, it is clear like noon day that the appellants were u,orking as un-aided lecturers in the concerned department of tl-re Col1ege.

15. Articlc- 30(1) of the Constitution of India, on which reliance is placed, does not help the appellants in any marner for the relief ciaimed. The College categorically pleaded that the aided posts stood surrendered in the year 2018. No relief is claimed in the writ petitions to declare such surrender as bad in law. Thus, there existed no posts which were receiving grzurt-in-aid against which the appellants could have been absorbed. \o documentary evidence to substantiate the same was filed by the appellants. It was certainll, ri.ithin the province of the Coll:ge to run the institution in 'se1f financing mode'.

16. The learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, has taken a plausible vieu, and opined that in the absence of any aided posts, no mandamus can be issued to absorb the appellants. I 6 HACJ & RY,J WAs 1318 & 7320 of 2024

17. At the appellate stage, I.A.No.l of 2025 in W.A.No.1318 of 2024 and I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.A.No.1320 of 2024 xe hled to receive the documents which contain "absentee statement for the month of December, 2006". The vacancy position of 2006 is of no use for the appellants because the vacancies against which the appellants were claiming the benefit were not shown to be existing when the writ petitions were decided. Thus, the said documents are of no assistalce to the appellants.

18. The appellants placed reliance on certain judgments. The entire legal journey regarding grant of relief against unaided institution is recently considered by the Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargavaz. After considering the previous judgments in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain3, Anita Verma v D.A.V. College Management Committee+, Binny Ltd. v V.Sadasivans, Sushmita Basu v. Ballygunge Siksha Samityo, Satimbla Sharma v. St. Paul's Senior Secondary . SchoolT, Committee of Management, Delhi Public School v o ' lzoz:; + scc ass t 1tszo1 z scc s8 1rs9zl t uerarc :o ' {zoos) s scc osz " (zooo) z scc ego '(zort) tg scc zoo I I |' ... I I I 7 HACJ & RY,] WAs_1318 & 7320 of 2024 M.K.Gandhis and Trigun Chand Thakur v. State of Biharg, the Apex Court came to hold as under: "66. \'lcrel1- bccause a u'rit petition cal be mainlained against the privatt: rndrviduals discharging the public duties and/or public functions, the same should not be entertained if the enforcement is sought to be st-'crtred under the realm of a private lar.r,.. It would not be safe to say thitt the moment the private institution is amenable to writ jurisdiction then every dispute concerning thc said private institution is amcnable to writ jurisdiction. lt largely clependi upon the naturc of thc dispute and the enforcement of the right by an tndividual against such institution. The right which purely originates liom a private law cannot be enforced taking aid of the u'rit jurisdiction irrespective of the fact that such institution is clischargrng the public duties ald/or public functions. The scope of tht: mand amus is basrcallv limited to an enforce menl of the public clu ty arrl therefore. it is an ardent dutv of the cou rt to flnd out [.hether thc nature of the dutv come s within the peripheral of the pu blic du There must bc a oublic law elemcnt in an action." It u,as furthcr held ers under . 'lhis Courl. took the view that cvery public "67. functior.r,i pu blic duty would not make a writ pr:tition to be maintainablc agairlst an "authorit/ or a ,,person" referred under Article 226 of thc Cottstitution of India un.lcss the functions are such rvhir:h nre akin to rhe functions of the State or :uc sovereign in nature. J ! Lastl1 , it u,as poignantly held as under: , I "75.4. ...1L is only where the removal of em employee of non teaching sraff is rcgulated by some statutory provisior.rs, its violation bv the emplo;,,er rn contravention of law may be intt:rfcred with by the Corrrt. Bt lt such inte rference will be on the grounrl of trreach of lau, and not on thc basis of interference in discharge of public dut (Emphasis Supplied) " 1zots1 tz scc as: '12ors; z scc sr: l 8 HAO & RY,J WAs 1318 & 1320 of 2024

19. In the instant case, the appellants could not establish any breach of law or vioiation of any statutory provision. In the absence thereof, no relief was due to the appellants and the learned Single Judge has not committed any error of law in rejecting their claim. 20 . Thus, the admission is declined and the writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if alv pending, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.K. SHYLESHI E UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI SADU RAJESWARA REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l, High Court for the State of Telangana IOUT]

3. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS CHATUARTHY, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies. BSK BS \y ,/ il) () I , J' S14 11 t4Af, zffi o l' i : 0r: lpni crlEi HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.No.1318 & 1320 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS \ b \