THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.77 OF 2006 O R D E R (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition, aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2005 in W.P.No.12259 of 2005 to the extent it held that the petitioner was not entitled to commence her probation unless selected and appointed by a duly constituted Selection Committee pursuant to notification of a vacancy in the post of a Lecturer in Telugu Studies. Admittedly, the appellant and the second respondent underwent a selection process in the year 1992 and they were empanelled in the selection list at Serial Nos.2 and 3 respectively. It is no doubt true that the legal import and consequence of the treating of the selection list as a ‘waitlist’ by the respondent University is highly suspect in the light of Section 43 of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991, as pointed out by the learned single Judge. However, the fact remains that the appellant and the second respondent were appointed as Lecturers in Telugu Studies in the year 1992 and continued as such. It is brought to our notice that the appellant has already retired from service while the second respondent is still continuing. It would be a travesty of justice to seek to turn back the clock at this stage and oust these persons from the posts now, holding that the University failed to act in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The sins of the University cannot be visited upon the appellant or the second respondent allowing the University itself to go scot free. Being a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12, the University is expected to conform to constitutional norms in the process of appointment of its teaching and non-teaching staff. Unfortunately, as pointed out by the learned single Judge, the University seems to pursue a unique and singular regime of its own uncaring of constitutional compulsions. This approach on the part of the University requires to be condemned in no uncertain terms. It is not befitting that an organ of the State should resort to such practices trifling with the lives of innocent job aspirants. We therefore decry the action of the University in making appointments contrary to the statutory scheme envisioned by the A.P. Universities Act, 1991. However, the issue presently is whether the appellant or the second respondent should be made to suffer the consequences of the illegal actions perpetrated by the respondent University at this late stage. As stated supra, both the appellant and the second respondent, having been appointed in the year 1992 continued to serve the respondent University. The appellant has since retired from service, while the second respondent is still working. Though the posts to which they were appointed were not notified, it is brought out that there was a regular vacancy in the post of lecturer, occasioned by the absorption of the incumbent, Dr.A.Anandam, in the Telugu University and there was also a vacancy in a Reader’s Post due to the death of the incumbent, Prof.M.Subba Reddy. It is also brought to our notice that the respondent University itself issued Proceedings No. E.II(1)/KML.Tel/1992 dated 13.08.2008 stating that the probation of the appellant was deemed to have commenced with effect from 30.10.1992, being the date of her joining in service and duly confirmed her services in the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 30.10.1994, upon her successful completion of probation. The said proceedings however read that the same is subject to the result of the present writ appeal. In view of this belated action on the part of the respondent University, perhaps to compensate for its past sins, and keeping in mind the fact that the appellant has also retired from service having put in nearly 15 years as a Lecturer/Reader in the University, we are not inclined to unsettle these long settled matters at this stage. Having declared the probation of the appellant, the respondent University can have no objection to process the pension papers put in by the appellant and extending to her the terminal benefits that are rightfully due to her. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of directing the respondent University to take necessary steps for processing the pension papers of the appellant and to expeditiously pay her all the lawful pensionary benefits due to her. In the circumstances of the case, we do not think it necessary to make any order as to costs. -------------------------- V.ESWARAIAH, J. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 24th March, 2009. PGS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.77 OF 2006 (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) 24TH MARCH, 2009