HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETTIION No. 21167 of 2001 DATED: 26-11-2010 Between: Gudipaty Anantharam …Petitioner And The Secretary Govt of A.P. Education (CE-II-1) Department & others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETTIION No. 21088 of 2001 DATED: 26-11-2010 Between: SVS Prasad …Petitioner And The Secretary Govt of A.P. Education (CE-II-1) Department & others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETTIION No. 21088 of 2001 In WRIT PETTIION No. 21167 of 2001 COMMON ORDER: Similar Points are raised in both these writ petitions and therefore, both of them are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Both the petitioners are working as part time Lecturers in Physics in Hindu College, Guntur. When recruitment notification was issued by the 5th respondent for recruitment of Aided Lecturers in Physics on 20-6-2001 and published in Indian Express daily newspaper dated 23-06-29001, the petitioners have filed these two writ petitions seeking Mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in not absorbing the petitioners in the aided posts in the Department of Physics, in Hindu College, Guntur as violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Indian Constitution and to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners as Lecturer in Physics in aided posts in that college. 3. Both the petitioners are having requisite educational qualifications under the rules for appointment as Lecturers in Physics. The petitioner in WP No. 21167 of 2001, namely, Gudipaty Anantharam joined in Hindu College on 12.7.2000 as part time Lecturer and has been working as such by the date of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner in WP No. 21088 of 2001, namely, S.V.S. Prasad was appointed as part time Lecturer in Hindu College on 1-7-1999 and has been working as such. As per terms of service as part time Lecturer, they are paid salary of Rs.1500 and Rs.1800 per month respectively. The petitioners are contending that instead of absorbing them as Lecturers in the aided posts when they have fallen vacant, the management resorted to invitation of candidates for selection by public notice. By the date of the impugned notification, the petitioners served as part time Lecturers for only six months and one year eleven months respectively in Hindu College, Guntur. 4. The petitioners’ counsel placing reliance on Secretary State of Karnata V. Umadevi [1] of the Supreme Court contended that the petitioners have been working as part time Lecturers since more than ten years and that therefore, they are entitled for regularization of their services in terms of that Judgment. He laid stress on para 53 of that Judgment and it is thus: “One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S V Narayanappa[2], R N Nanjundappa[3] and B N Nagarjan[4] and referred to in para 15 above of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by his court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation if any already made, but not sub juice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” Umadevi ( 1 surpa) was followed in subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. L.Kesar[5]. 5. On the other hand, it is contended by the Government Pleader that the Government of Andhra Pradesh previously issued G.O.Ms.No. 328 Education (CE-III) Department dated 15-10-1997 giving one time opportunity for regularisation of Lecturers, who were appointed as against the sanctioned posts without following regular recruitment process. Relevant portion of the said G.O. reads as follows: “Only those who have put in a service of 3 academic years as on 30-7-1991 or 5 academic years as on 25-11-1993 as the case may be and also continuing in service on the date of issue of these orders are eligible for regularisation. 120 days are considered to be reasonable number of working days for an academic year, the PTL/PTJL’s should have put in 360 working days as on 30-7-1991 and 600 working days as on 25.11.1993. The service put up by the PTL/PTJL in more than one private aided college with or without breaks may be taken into account. Counting of service shall be based on the certificate issued by the concerned RJD(HE) and countersigned by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education/Commissioner & Director of Intermediate Education as the case may be. Such certificate shall be issued by the RJD(HE) based on the certificates issued by the correspondent of the respective college and counter signed by the principal of the private college along with the certificate of audit for the concerned period.” 6. At this stage itself, it can be stated that by the time of date of issue of G.O.Ms.No. 328 dated 15-10-1997, none of the petitioners was in service of the 5th respondent, namely, Hindu College, Guntur muchless as part time Lecturers. Therefore, question of application or non-application of G.O.Ms.No. 328 does not arise at all in this case. 7. I n Umadevi ( 1 supra) while noticing irregular appointments as Lecturers made by several managements of colleges and with a view to regularise all the irregular appointments, the supreme Court suggested and laid down a formula of one time basis. In order to come within this purview, the Lecturer should have put in minimum of 10 years of service as Lecturer as against a sanctioned post. In my opinion, Umadevi ( 1 supra) is not applicable to both the petitioners herein as they were not working as Lecturers and have been working only as part time lecturers; and not against sanctioned posts of Lecturers. The petitioners were only working on part time basis and there is no embargo for them to undertake any other employment simultaneously while working as part time Lecturers in the 5th respondent college. Viewed from any angle, the petitioners have no right to seek the management to absorb them as Lecturers as against the sanctioned posts or aided posts. There is absolutely no violation of any of the Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India herein. 8. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there are number of Lecturers, who belonged to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe categories in the 5th respondent - college and that in spite of it, the 5th respondent gave notification for recruitment of two posts of Lecturers in Physics reserving one post to a candidate of scheduled caste (D) and another post to the candidate belonging to scheduled tribe. The petitioners could not furnish any data on the basis of which the said submissions were advanced before this court. No communal roster of the college is placed before this court to find out whether the advertised posts really belonged to scheduled caste or schedule tribe candidates or whether they are available under open category. Thus the petitioner failed to prove all the above grounds. I find no merits in these two petitions. 10. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 26-11-2010 Mjl/*1 [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] 1962 Supp(2) SCR 144: AIR 1962 SC 1210 [3] (1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799 [4] (1979) 4 SCC 507: 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937 [5] 2010(1) Decisions Today (SC) 358