THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14482 of 2006 Date: 14.02.2011 Between: G. Parvathi Devi …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14482 of 2006 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to declare the Government Memo No.1679/IE.II.1/2006-5, dated 16.5.2006, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to declare that the petitioner is fully eligible and qualified to be admitted against the grant-in-aid post of Junior Lecturer in Telugu in the 5th respondent College, with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Lecturer in Telugu in the 5th respondent College in the year 1990 and her status as unaided Lecturer in the 5th respondent college was approved by the respondents by proceedings dated 17.12.1998. While so, since a post of Junior Lecturer in Telugu fell vacant, which was admitted to grant-in- aid on 8.2.2001, after being subjected to the selection process, the name of the petitioner was recommended by the management of 5th respondent college for being absorbed against the existing aided vacancy of Junior Lecturer in Telugu. However, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 15.11.2001 on the ground that the appointment by transfer of the petitioner from unaided post of Junior Lecturer to the existing aided vacant post of Junior Lecturer in Telugu is not feasible for compliance. However, the case of the petitioner was again recommended on 3.12.2001 by the management of 5th respondent college and the same was again rejected by the Government in Memo No.1679/IE.II.1/2006- 5, dated 16.5.2006, stating that with a view to limit the financial commitment of the Government in the aided sector of Higher Education, Government have issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education, dated 27.3.2006, banning any further filling up of vacancies in aided colleges by way of direct recruitment. 3. The said reason assigned by the respondents appears to be most unreasonable. There is no necessity of creating any new vacancy for the purpose of absorption of the petitioner in aided vacancy. Already three vacancies of aided Junior Lecturers in Telugu were available in the 5th respondent college. Inspite of that, the case of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that there is a ban. This Court time and again held that the ban on recruitment is applicable only when there is a direct recruitment and not for absorption of the persons already working in the unaided section. 4. Further, it is interesting to notice that at para-4 of the said order dated 16.5.2006, it is stated as under: “The Commissioner of Intermediate Education in his letter dated 09.05.2006, has further reported that there are 5 aided sections in AFDT Junior College (Aided), Malikpuram in East Godavari District and 3 aided posts of Junior Lecturers in Telugu were originally sanctioned in the said college. As against the said 3 posts, Sri K. Ramachandra Murthy is working against the 1st aided post and Sri G.S. Vishwanatha Raju is working against the 2nd post. Smt. G.Parvathi Devi, unaided JL in Telugu is working against the 3rd vacancy with effect from 01.11.1990. Though the aided post of Junior Lecturer in Telugu is vacant from 01.06.1984, as on date, the workload in Telugu subject is sufficient only for 2 Junior Lecturers and there is no work for the 3rd Junior Lecturer post in Telugu in the said college. Also each Aided Junior College under Private Management is a separate unit for the purpose of appointment.” 5. It could be seen that 2 other Lecturers, who are working against aided vacancies of Telugu Junior Lecturers have already attained the age of superannuation and retired from service. At least, the petitioner could have been absorbed against those vacancies. Thus, as on date, though three aided vacancies of Junior Lecturers are available, the case of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that there is a ban by virtue of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.35, Higher Education, dated 27.3.2006. 6. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the rationale applied by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal and in the teeth of availability of three aided vacancies, the petitioner is entitled for being absorbed against any one of the said aided vacancies in the 5th respondent college. The petitioner has been working for the last more than 21 years as Lecturer in Telugu and she is asked to continue as Lecturer in unaided vacancy. This is nothing but harassment. It appears that the cases of many of the Lecturers are being rejected for absorption against the available aided vacancies. This will certainly cause hindrance in the educational excellence and imparting instructions to the students. Hence, the impugned order dated 16.5.2006 is liable to be set aside. 7. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 16.5.2006 and the respondents are directed to absorb the petitioner against any one of the aided vacancies of Junior Lecturers in Telugu in the 5th respondent college with effect from the date of the recommendation made i.e., 3.12.2001, on which date the imposition of ban was not available, and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 14.02.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14482 of 2006 14.02.2011 (Msr)