IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 5853 of 2005 Between: Sri Sarada Nikethan Oriental Degree College, Brodipet, Guntur, Rep. by its Correspondent B. Siva Sankar Rao S/o. Seetharamaiah, 54 years, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not constituting Departmental Promotion Committee/Selection Committee for filling the post of Principal on Regular basis among the qualified in-service candidates as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct respondents 1 and 2 to take all steps to fill up the vacant post of Principal by selecting and approving the candidates selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee forthwith and pass such other order or orders in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MAHENDER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.5853 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner College seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad-1st respondent, in not constituting Departmental Promotion Committee/Selection Committee for filling the post of Principal on regular basis among the qualified in-service candidates as illegal, improper and contrary to law and to direct the respondents i.e., the Commissioner of Collegiate Education-1st respondent, and the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education-2nd respondent, to take steps for filling up the vacant post of Principal by selecting and approving the candidate selected by the Selection Committee for the post of Principal. 2. Sri B.Siva Shankar Rao is the Correspondent of the petitioner College. It is the case of the petitioner that Dr.Vishnavi Durga, the regular Principal of the petitioner College retired from service on 30.11.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation and thereafter, a letter has been addressed on behalf of the petitioner College to the 1st respondent to fill up the vacant aided post of the Principal of the petitioner College. Out of the eligible persons, the senior most Lecturer had already relinquished her right for promotion to the post of the Principal. With regard to the 2nd senior lecturer in the seniority list, she does not possess the required qualifications, and the 3rd senior lecturer in the seniority list alone is eligible, as she possesses all the required qualifications for the post of the Principal. It is stated that there is no justification on the part of the respondents in not constituting the Departmental Promotion Committee for selecting a candidate for the post of Principal on regular basis. 3. A counter has been filed by the 1st respondent admitting that the regular Principal Dr.Vishnavi Durga retired from service on 30.11.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. The proposal, dated 16.11.2004, stated to have been sent to the 1st respondent to accord permission to fill up the post of the Principal has not been received, and, therefore, the question of not constituting the Departmental Promotion Committee to fill up the post of the Principal does not arise. It is stated that as per the letter, dated 18.02.2005, of the 2nd respondent-Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, the senior most Lecturer is Smt.R.Padmavathi, who was appointed on 29.06.1970, and the 2nd senior Lecuturer is Smt.J.Vani Kumari, appointed on 20.08.1975, the 3rd senior Lecturer is Smt.M.Vasantha Lakshmi, appointed on 01.12.1979, the 4th senior Lecturer is Smt.K.V.S.Ranganayaki, appointed on 28.12.1981, and the 5th senior Lecturer is Smt.K.Rajyalakshmi, appointed on 09.08.1982. It is stated that as per the orders of the Government, the Departmental Promotion Committee has to consider the claims of the three senior most Lecturers for the post of the Principal. As per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.127 Education Department, dated 07.06.1993, and the Memo, dated 27.01.1995, the responsibility of the Departmental Promotion Committee is to examine the claims of the three senior most Lecturers of the College for the post of the Principal, but not the claims of six Lecturers as contended by the petitioner. It is stated that Smt. J.Vani Kumari, the 2nd senior in the seniority list, also possessed requisite qualifications to consider her claim as a Principal, along with the senior most Lecturer namely Smt.R.Padmavathi and the 3rd senior Lecturer namely Smt.M.Vasanthalakshmi. It is stated that Smt.M.Vasanthalakshmi, the 3rd senior Lecturer in the seniority list, filed a representation, dated 04.11.2004, requesting to promote her as a Principal, but the same was rejected and, aggrieved thereby, she filed W.P.No.21208 of 2004 which was disposed of on 19.11.2004 directing the respondents to consider her candidature, if she fulfills the norms prescribed under the Rules. But the Correspondent of the petitioner College did not submit suitable proposals to the 1st respondent and, moreover, without considering the claims of the suitable senior Lecturers, he straight away promoted the 3rd senior lecturer namely Smt.M.Vasanthalakshmi as a temporary Principal, without following the Rules. Aggrieved thereby, the 2nd senior lecturer namely Smt.J.Vani Kumari, made a representation, dated 10.12.2004, requesting the 1st respondent to consider her seniority and arrange to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting for selection to the post of Principal as per seniority-cum-efficiency. Accordingly, the 1st respondent, vide his proceedings dated 27.01.2005, directed the petitioner College as well as the 2nd respondent to furnish detailed remarks on the said representation of Smt.J.Vani Kumari, but the petitioner did not furnish any remarks. However, the 2nd respondent vide his letter, dated 18.02.2005, submitted detailed remarks on the representation of Smt.J.Vani Kumari, and pursuant to the receipt of the said remarks and also pursuant to the Memo dated 27.01.1995 issued by the Government, the 1st respondent issued instructions to the petitioner College to place Smt.J.Vani Kumari, the 2nd senior Lecturer in the seniority list, as Principal In-charge by sending suitable proposals for permission to fill up the post of the Principal through the Departmental Promotion Committee. 4. I am of the opinion that if the senior most Lecturer Smt.R.Padmavathi is not willing to be appointed as Principal, the next senior namely Smt.J.Vani Kumari is entitled to be appointed as a Principal, but not Smt.M.Vasanthalakshmi, who is the 3rd senior in the seniority list. Therefore, the action of the petitioner College in promoting Smt.M.Vasanthalakshmi as a temporary Principal is illegal and unsustainable. In fact, Smt.J.Vani Kumari, the 2nd senior in the seniority list, is to be placed as In- charge Principal for the petitioner College, pending finalisation of the approval of selection for the post of the Principal. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to send the panel of three names to the respondents, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, so as to enable the respondents to constitute the Departmental Promotion Committee for selection of eligible candidate from among the panel, and for the approval of the respondents. Until the regular Principal is selected, Smt.J.Vani Kumari, the 2nd senior in the seniority list, is to be placed as Principal-in- charge. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH 22.07.2008 v v