THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.24923 OF 1999 O R D E R Heard Sri K.V.Simhadri, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Battacherji, Standing Counsel for the respondent – University and the Government Pleader for Higher Education. 2. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the proceedings in Lr.No.17099/UE.I.2/98-4 dated 21.7.1999, issued by the 1st respondent – State of A.P. represented by its Secretary, Education Department, Hyderabad, in rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services as Typist, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance Department dated 22.4.1994, on the ground that she does not confirm to condition of age prescribed in the said G.O. 3. The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that she was appointed as Typist in 2nd respondent – Osmania University, Hyderabad, on 22.7.1987 on daily wage basis. As she was over aged, the Vice Chancellor of the University, who is the competent authority and who has been delegated the power under Clause 24 of Section 21 of Osmania University Act, 1959, by the University Syndicate at its 280th meeting held on 30.10.1979, with regard to exemption from age bar in cases of appointment to the non-gazetted staff including Class IV Employees of the University; had granted age relaxation at the time of appointment. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994 for regularization of daily wage employees who have completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993. The case of the petitioner is that she has completed six and half years as on 25.11.1993 and, therefore, eligible for being regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212. Therefore, the 2nd respondent – University by proceedings no.MR-92/322/73(S)/Est. I dated 4.04.1996, forwarded the name of the petitioner to the 1st respondent – Government, along with other daily wage employees, for regularization. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent – Government issued G.O.Rt.No.631 Education (U.E.I-2) Department dated 3-4-1997 regularizing the services of six typists, excluding her name and one of the typists who was regularized is junior to her. The 2nd respondent – University again by communications dated 31.5.1997 and 19.5.1998, bringing to the notice of the Government with regard to the age relaxation granted to the petitioner by the competent authority, sought to regularize the services of the petitioner. But by proceedings in Lr.No.17099/UE.I.2/98-4 dated 21.7.1999, the Deputy Secretary to Government intimated that it is not possible to relax any conditions of the scheme. On the ground that the petitioner was over aged at the time of initial recruitment, the Government is not regularizing the service of the petitioner under G.O.Ms.No.212. The case of the petitioner is that as she was given age relaxation by the competent authority at the time of initial appointment, she shall be deemed to be within the age limit prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.212. With these averments, she sought for a direction to the 1st respondent – Government to regularize her services. 4. The Additional Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education, filed counter affidavit and stated that as the petitioner was 38 years and was over aged at the time of her appointment in the University and as there is no feasibility of age relaxation which is stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Dated 22.4.1994, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The 2nd respondent – University filed counter affidavit bringing to the notice of this court about the age relaxation granted by the University at the time of appointment of the petitioner and as the university is not contemplating to remove the service of any daily wage employee, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. From the above material on record, there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Typist in the 2nd respondent – University on 22.7.1987 on daily wage basis. The case of the petitioner is that the competent authority – Vice Chancellor has granted her age relaxation, as she was over aged, at the time of initial appointment. In this regard it is necessary to examine, whether the competent authority has got power to relax the age of any employee. At the relevant time, the Osmania University Act, 1959 (for short ‘1959 Act’) was in vogue and later it was repealed and Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991 (for short ‘1991 Act’) came into force with effect from 22.1.1991. The petitioner was granted age relaxation by the Vice-Chancellor under 1959 Act. Section 20 of the 1959 Act deals with Syndicate and Section 21 deals with the Powers and Duties of the Syndicate. The relevant provisions under the said sections are extracted as under for better appreciation: 20. The Syndicate shall consist of the following persons, namely:- Class I – Ex-Officio Members: (i) The Vice-Chancellor; (ii) The rector; (iii) The Secretary to Government in the Education Department. (iv) The Secretary to Government in the Finance Department; (v) The Director of Higher Education; (vi) The Directors of the Autonomous Post-graduate Centers in the University area, if any; Class II – Other members: 21. Powers and duties of Syndicate:-- The Syndicate shall be the executive authority of the University and shall have power: (7) to appoint, dismiss, remove or suspend the servant of the University. (8) to fix the emoluments of the servants of the University and define their duties and the conditions of their service; (24) to delegate any of its power to the Vice- Chancellor or to a committee from among its own members of to any employee of the University. 7. Section 20 of 1959 Act, shows the persons who shall constitute a Syndicate. From Section 20 it is clear that the Syndicate consists of not only members of the University, but also the representatives of the Government. Clauses 7 and 8 of Section 21 enunciates that the Syndicate has the power to appoint, dismiss, remove or suspend the servant of the University and also to fix the emoluments of the servants of the University and define their duties and the conditions of the service and further clause 24 empowers the Syndicate to delegate any of its power to the Vice-chancellor or to a committee from among its owner members, to deal with any employee of the University. 8. In view of Clause 24 of Section 21, the Syndicate has delegated its power to the Vice Chancellor of the University at its 280th meeting held on 30.10.1979. To this effect, orders have been issued in proceedings no.183/7/1979/Rules dated 3.1.1980, by the Registrar. The said letter is extracted as under for better appreciation: “Establishment – Non-Gazetted – Exemption from age bar – Exemption from age bar to the Non-Gazetted Staff – Powers delegated by the University Syndicate to the Vice- Chancellor – Orders – Issued. -- In accordance with Clause (24) of Section (21) of the O.U.Act 1959 the University Syndicate at its 280th meeting held on 30th October, 1979 has delegated to the Vice- Chancellor the power of exemption from age bar in the cases of appointment to the Non-Gazetted staff including Class IV Employees of the University. Sd/ Registrar & Secretary UNIVERSITY SYNDICATE” 9. From the above it is clear that the University Syndicate has delegated to the Vice-Chancellor, the power of exemption from age bar in the cases of appointment to non-gazetted staff including Class IV Employees of the University. As already noticed above, under Section 20, the Syndicate consists of representatives from the Government viz., the Secretary to Government in the Education Department, the Secretary to Government in the Finance Department and the Director of Higher Education. This aspect has not been disputed in the counters filed by both the respondents. 10. The 1959 Act has been repealed and 1991 Act has been promulgated. Sections 20 and 21 of 1959 Act, correspondents to Sections 18 and 19 of 1991 Act. Under Section 18, the persons who shall be in the Executive Council are enumerated. In the Executive Council, the Secretaries to Government in Education Department, Finance Department and the Director of Higher Education or the Commissioner of the Collegiate Education are its members and such Executive Council is in the place of Syndicate. Under clause 25 of Section 19 under the new Act, which deals with the Powers and Duties of the Executive Council, it is clear that the Executive Council can delegate its powers to the Vice-chancellor or to a Committee from among its owner members or to any employee of University. 11. Therefore, under the old Act of 1959 and the new Act of 1991, the power can be delegated to the Vice Chancellor. Under such delegated power, the Vice Chancellor, in the present case, as already noticed above, relaxed the age of the petitioner at the time of initial appointment. At the cost of repetition, the Syndicate, which delegated the power to the Vice Chancellor, consisted of officials from the Government and in exercise of such delegated power, the Vice Chancellor has granted age relaxation to the petitioner and there is no dispute in this regard. In such circumstances, it shall be deemed that the petitioner is within the prescribed age at the time of appointment and no objection with regard to her age at the time of extending the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.212, can be raised. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner completed six and half years as on 25.11.1993 and hence, she is eligible to be considered for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212. The 2nd respondent – University vide letters dated 4.4.1996 and 21.2.1997 sought the 1st respondent – Government to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212. But her case was not considered on the ground that she was not within the prescribed age in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212. 13. The objection of the 1st respondent – Government with regard to the age of the petitioner, in view of the foregoing reasons, cannot be sustained and accordingly, proceedings issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government in Lr.No.17099/UE.I.2/98-4 dated 21.7.1999 is set aside and consequently the 1st respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. AVS -------------------------------- 24—08—2011