IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2645 of 2006 Between: 1 B.Srinivasa Rao, s/o B.K.Vardarajulu, V.R.S. & Y.R.N.College, Chirala-523 157, Prakasam District. 2 A.Satish Babu, s/o A.Hanumanth Rao, V.R.S.& Y.R.N.College, Chirala-523 157, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education, "J" Block, 4th Floor, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Secretary & Correspondent, V.R.S.& Y.R.N.College, Chirala, Prakasam District. (R-3 is not necessary party to the Writ Petition) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the extent of regularizing the gap period from 12-11-1991 to 04-07-1999 is leave is illegal and consequently set-aside the same and direct the respondents herein to pay the salaries with all consequential monetary benefits including the increments from the date of their initial appointments i.e., 16-01-1989 and 03-04-1989 respectively and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioners are appointed as Lecturers in Commerce in the third respondent institution on 16.01.1989 and 03.04.1989 respectively against aided vacancies. Even before their appointments were approved by the competent authority in the Government, the Management terminated the services vide proceedings, dated 27.02.1990. Few days thereafter, they were reinstated, but once again removed on 12.11.1991. Aggrieved by the orders of removal, the petitioners approached the appellate authority i.e. the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education under Section 89 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. The appeal was allowed and the orders of termination were set aside. The third respondent carried the matter in a revision before the first respondent. Through its order in G.O.Rt.No.1840 Education (CE.II.1) Department, dated 05.11.1994, the first respondent rejected the revision of the third respondent. After certain rounds of litigation before this Court, the petitioners, ultimately, came to be reinstated into service on 04.07.1999. The question of according approval to the appointment of the petitioners by the competent authority fell for consideration at various stages. A comprehensive order came to be passed in G.O.Rt.No.775 High Education (CE.II.1) Department, dated 14.10.2004. The first respondent directed that the services of the petitioners be approved against aided vacancies with effect from 16.01.1989 and 03.04.1989 respectively and that the period between 12.11.1991 and 04.07.1999 be regularized as leave to which they are entitled to. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the second limb of the direction issued in G.O.Rt.No.775, dated 14.10.2004. Heard Sri P.R.Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. The appointment of the petitioners was preceded by a notification by the third respondent and a selection process by a properly constituted Selection Committee. However, even before the competent authority accorded approval for the appointment of the petitioners, they came to be removed from service on two occasions, the latest being on 12.11.1991. It is no doubt true that the appellate authority directed reinstatement of the petitioners and the Government upheld the order of the appellate authority in the revision. The fact, however, remains that by the time the petitioners came to be removed from service or for that matter their appeal was allowed, the competent authority did not accord the approval of the appointment. Therefore, the period during which the petitioners remained out of service needed to be regularized, while according approval at a later date. The petitioners insist that the period between 12.11.1991 and 04.07.1999 must also be treated as regular service and that they be extended the arrears of salary from the date of regularization. In this regard, it needs to be observed that the Government cannot assume the liability to pay the salary for the period during which the petitioners were out of service, on the basis of the orders passed by the Management, that too, without their approval. Further, there was no direction by the appellate or the revision authorities as to how, the period for which the petitioners were out of service, has to be treated. Faced with all these problems, the first respondent has taken a comprehensive view and passed the impugned order. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.06.2008. Kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}