(Prayer: Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.3188/2005, dated 14- 12-2023 by allowing the present writ appeal and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 144 days in representing the WASR.No. 19052 of 2024 filed against the orders dated 14-12-2023 in WP No,3188 of 2005 and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of orders dated 14.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.3188 of 2005 in the interest of justice and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the Interim Order granted in lA 2/2024 in WA No. 866/2024 dated 23- 10-2024 and to pass)

Battu Devanand, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 14.12.2013 in W.P.No.3188 of 2005.

2. The parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for convenience.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri A. Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and carefully perused the material available on record.

4. Submissions of the petitioners:

                  (i) The 1st petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant vide proceedings, dated 18.12.1996 and the petitioners 2 and 3 were appointed as Attender and Night Watchman vide proceedings, dated 23.12.1996 in 4th respondent college. As they were appointed in aided vacancies, the Government has to release the grant-in-aid for payment of their salaries. As the Government failed to release the salaries to the petitioners, they filed W.P.No.25486 of 1997 seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the salaries due to them from the date of their appointment and for regular payment of salaries with interest at 18% per annum on the amounts due to them.

                  (ii) The said writ petition was disposed of on 08.08.2003 directing the respondents to pay salaries to the petitioners as per rules. Aggrieved by the said order, the Government preferred an appeal in W.A.No.1051 of 2004 and a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.M.P.Nos.1890 and 3394 of 2004 passed in interim order on 25.11.2004 directing the petitioners therein to pay salaries to the respondents in the minimum time scale of pay in the respective posts with effect from January, 1999 taking into consideration the revision of pay scales, if any, effected from time to time and pay the arrears accrued up to October, 2004 within a period of two months from the date of the order. It is further directed to continue to pay salaries regularly as directed above from November, 2004 onwards.

                  (iii) Thereafter, the 1st respondent vide impugned proceedings, dated 07.02.2005 terminated the petitioners’ services alleging that their appointments were irregular. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petition.

5. Submissions of the Respondents:

                  (i) A counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. It is averred that the petitioners were appointed as Record Assistant, Attender and Night Watchman in 4th respondent college by the then Principal without following due process of selection contrary to the rules which were in vogue. It is stated that 4th respondent college was an aided private college which was under the control of 3rd respondent since 01.09.1978. By virtue of the G.O.Ms.No.939, Education (IE) Department, dated 20.09.1978, 13 colleges functioning under the erstwhile Chintalapathi Bapiraju Dharma Samstha were taken over by the Government. On 09.04.1997, 3rd respondent has physically taken over the college and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.294, dated 24.09.1997 for payment of salaries to the staff working in 5 Junior Colleges including 4th respondent college from the Government account.

                  (ii) It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that vide proceedings, dated 27.09.1996 and 15.09.1996 of 1st respondent, 4th respondent was permitted to fill up the vacant posts of Record Assistant and Night Watchman as per existing rules. The 4th respondent appointed the petitioners without notifying to the employment exchange and without following the required recruitment rules. It is further contended that after approval of appointments by the Board of Intermediate Education, 1st respondent is liable to pay salaries to the persons who were admitted to grant-in-aid. The then Principal who made these appointments did not follow the prescribed procedure, except advertising in daily newspapers and appointed the petitioners on his own without constituting selection committee as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.1119, dated 18.12.1976.

                  (iii) It is further averred that the Principal, Sri P.S. Bheemeshwar Rao, who was responsible for above irregular appointments, was suspended from service for making their illegal appointments among other allegations. As the petitioners are not regular employees, they were not eligible for payment of salary either from the grant-in-aid provision or from the Government budget after institution was taken over by the Government. Hence, the irregular appointments of the petitioners made by 4th respondent cannot be ratified and the services of the petitioners will have to be terminated.

                  (iv) It is further averred in the counter that 1st respondent issued proceedings, dated 07.02.2005 terminating the irregular appointments of the petitioners made by 4th respondent after paying one month salary to them in lieu of notice of termination as per law. In view of the said factual position, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief sought.

Reasons and findings:

6. Having considered the submissions of the respective parties and on careful perusal of the material available on record, the learned single Judge of this Court by order, dated 14.12.2023 allowed the writ petition by setting aside the proceedings, dated 07.02.2005 issued by 1st respondent and directed the respondents to treat the petitioners’ initial appointment as regular and confer them all the service benefits as per the rules within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed.

7. As seen from the material available on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side in this appeal, the main issue to be considered herein is whether the appointments of the writ petitioners are made by following due process of law or not and the order of the learned single Judge is well founded or not?

8. It is an admitted fact that 4th respondent was initially a private aided college which was under the control of 3rd respondent since 1978. It is also an admitted fact that through office proceedings, dated 27.09.1996 and 18.07.1996, 4th respondent was permitted to fill up the vacant posts of Record Assistant and Night Watchman as per the existing rules. The contention of the respondents is that 4th respondent appointed the writ petitioners without notifying to the employment exchange and without following required rules and also 4th respondent appointed 2nd writ petitioner as Attender without permission from the Director of Intermediate Education.

9. As seen from the material available on record for appointing the petitioners, there was permission granted to 4th respondent by the concerned authorities. The Principal of 4th respondent college made paper advertisement, dated 07.12.1996, inviting applications for the posts of Record Assistant, Attender and Night Watchman. Then, after conducting interviews on 15.12.1996, appointment orders were issued to the petitioners vide proceedings, dated 18.12.1996. Then, 4th respondent submitted copies of appointments to the Commissioner & Director of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad and also to 3rd respondent. Considering these facts, the learned single Judge came to an opinion that in this backdrop, it cannot be state that the Principal has grossly violated the rules. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge that if really the then Principal violated any rules, after receiving copies of appointment orders, the respondent authorities must have taken steps to set aside the appointment of the petitioners immediately. But, admittedly, no action has been taken at the relevant point of time. It is also an admitted fact that in compliance of the orders in W.P.No.25486 of 1997 and orders in W.A.M.P.Nos.1890 and 3394 of 2004 in W.A.No.1051 of 2004, the respondents paid salaries to the petitioners.

10. During the course of hearing of this appeal, it is brought to the notice of this Court that writ appeal filed by the Government in W.A.No.1051of 2004 against the order, dated 08.08.2003 in W.P.No.25486 of 1997 was dismissed vide judgment, dated 06.08.2009 by a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court.

11. Besides this, as seen from the order, dated 07.07.2005 impugned in the writ petition wherein the petitioners’ service was terminated by the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, it discloses that no notice was issued to the petitioners or no opportunity was afforded to them to put forth their version. Admittedly, termination of service of an employee is major punishment order. As such, passing termination order without putting the affected parties on notice is clear violation of principles of natural justice. It is settled law that any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is unsustainable in the eye of law. On this ground also the termination order, dated 07.02.2005 issued by 1st respondent is liable to be set aside.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, in our considered view, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned single Judge wherein the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 07.02.2005 issued by 1st respondent is set aside and in issuing consequential directions. Therefore, the appellants failed to make out any case warranting interference of this Court either on facts or on law.

12. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.