THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3095 of 2008 Dated:15.02.2008 Between: K.Shankaraiah ..... PETITIONERS And Government of A.P., reptd., by its Secretary, Education Department, Hyderabad and four others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3095 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ of certiorari is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated 21.09.2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in O.A.No.5633 of 2007, whereunder status-quo as on that day was directed to be maintained in respect of the applicants, and to set aside the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as part-time Lecturer in public administration of the fifth respondent-College. 3. Petitioner is applicant No.2 and respondents are respondents, in the O.A., before the Tribunal. 4. Petitioner has worked as Part-time Lecturer in public administration at Government Degree College, Nirmal, Adilabad District, from 08.07.1993 to 06.03.1998 and subsequently, worked in the public administration at respondent No.5-College from 13.12.1999 and continued as such from time to time till 13.04.2007. 5. While so, it appears, in the year 1996, the management has resorted to make appointments by direct recruitment, for the post of Part-time Lecturers, in which institution the petitioner and others were working. Challenging the said action of resorting to direct recruitment, Writ Petition No.26690 of 1996 came to be filed. 6. When the said writ petition came up for hearing, by virtue of the decision of the apex Court in L.CHANDRA KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA[1], the same was disposed of, by this Court, directing the petitioners to approach the Tribunal. Accordingly, O.A.No.3086 of 2007 was filed and the same is pending. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it has been the practice for the management of respondent No.5- College to engage Lecturers on Part-time basis at the beginning of the academic year and at the fag end of the academic year they used to disengage their service for some time, and again, engage them at the beginning of the academic year as Part-time Lecturers. 8. It could be seen from the proceedings, dated 25.06.2007, of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad, that the petitioner was not engaged merely on the ground that he, along with several others, had filed Writ Petition No.26690 of 1996 and O.As., before this Court and Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, respectively. 9. Challenging the said proceedings, another application O.A.No.5633 of 2007 was filed, and the order passed in the said O.A., is under challenge in the present writ petition. 10. In the said proceedings, it was further emphasized that “if the Court cases filed by any Part-time Lecturers have been disposed of/dismissed, the services of that Part-time Lecturer need not be engaged during the current academic year 2007- 2008”. 11. From the above, it is obvious that the respondents were keen not to engage the Part-time Lecturers, who approached the Courts of law, may be the Tribunal or the High Court, on one ground or the other, seeking continuance of their services. 12. In our considered view, prima facie, this act of discrimination on the part of respondents in respect of the Part- time Lecturers, who approached the Courts of law, after all, seeking continuance of their services on Part-time basis, particularly, in the present day context, is not tenable and approaching the Courts of law by the aggrieved persons cannot be treated as a disqualification for their continuance as Part-time Lecturers. Approaching the Courts of Law, seeking appropriate remedy, is a fundamental right and, on that score, the right of consideration for appointment as Lecturers even on Part-time basis cannot be deprived to any eligible persons. 13. The Tribunal did not consider this aspect from a proper perspective and consequently, passed the impugned order, the result of which, would be that during the pendency of the said O.A., before the Tribunal, the case of petitioner will not be considered at all for his engagement as Part-time Lecturer, which benefit he had been extended to for the past several years. However, the validity or otherwise of such rejection of the right of the petitioner for being engaged as Lecturer on Part-time basis is a larger question that has to be gone into and decided by the Tribunal in the said O.A. 14. For the foregoing and having regard to the facts and circumstances, the impugned order, passed by the Tribunal, is liable to be set aside. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, dated 21.09.2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.5633 of 2007. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in any vacancy that is available as of now, subject to availability of work or in the vacancies that may arise in the ensuing academic year as Part-time Lecturer, regardless of the pendency of the O.A., filed by him. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 DR [1] AIR 1997 SC 1125