HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION Nos.24454 of 2003 and 7944 of 2005 DATED 9th October, 2011. BETWEEN Dr. M.V. Satyanarayana Raju …….Petitioner in both WPs and Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors ……Respondents in both WPs. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION Nos.24454 of 2003 and 7944 of 2005 . COMMON ORDER: Writ Petition No. 7944 of 2005 is filed questioning the Memo dated 24.3.2004 issued by the first respondent whereby the request of the petitioner to regularize his services as Lecturer in Telugu in P.G. course in D.N.R.college,Bhimavaram, W.G.District, was rejected. The petitioner, after completion of his M.A. Post Graduation with Telugu Literature from Banaras Hindu University in the year 1987, acquired Doctorate in Philosophy in Telugu in the year 1990. He was appointed as a Post Graduate Lecturer in the Department of Telugu in the fourth respondent-DNR College, Bhimavaram, E.G. District on 11.8.1991. Prior thereto, he also worked as a Lecturer in Telugu in SPSSRO Oriental Degree College, Podagutlapalli, E.G. District during the year 1990-1991. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he made several representations to the respondents to regularize his services in the post of Lecturer, they did not do so. It is the case of the petitioner that as per G.O.Ms.No. 328, dated 15.10.1997, he has completed 600 working days and also 1430 working days by 31.3.1998; and that pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1998 (2) ALT 5, the concerned Governmental authorities regularized the services of NMRs in their respective cadres with effect from the date on which they have completed five years service; and that the Management of the DNR College, Bhimavaram had recommended his case to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for regularization of his services; and that services of the similarly placed persons viz., T.Viswanatham, Smt. Anuradha, Mr.Govinda Rao were regularized under various GOs and that as per G.O.Ms.No. 12, dated 10.1.1992 he is eligible to be appointed as a Lecturer. It is his further case that pursuant to his representation dated 3.2.2003, the Honourable Minister for Higher Education recommended his case to the Principal Secretary to Higher Education to examine and take appropriate action in the light of the directions of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 18060 of 2001. It is the complaint of the petitioner that despite his several efforts as stated supra, the respondents have not properly responded to regularize his services in the post of Lecturer in DNR College, Bhimavaram. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 denying the writ averments of the petitioner. It is mainly stated that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997; and that he entered the service of the fourth respondent-college through backdoor method; and that the Management of the fourth respondent- college had not obtained prior permission from the second respondent and had not followed the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 10.1.1992 while appointing the petitioner as a Lecturer and that G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 is not in force as on today and the same was annulled by the Government. Heard both sides. Perused the case file scrupulously. The petitioner has long and chequered history. It appears that the petitioner initially filed Writ Petition No.18060 of 2001 seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize his services in the post of Lecturer in Telugu language in the fourth respondent- College. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 30.10.2001 directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as was done in respect of the similarly situated persons. Pursuant to the said order, the Director of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad considered and rejected the case of the petitioner under his order dated 22.12.2001 while holding that the case of the petitioner did not stand on the same footing of Sri T.Viswanadha Rao, and Dr.R.V.Anuradha; and that the petitioner had neither completed the requisite academic years nor put in required number of workings as required under G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997. Thereafter, in the year 2003 the petitioner again knocked on the doors of this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 24454 of 2003. This time, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider the proposal of the fourth respondent-College for regularization of his services in the post of Lecturer. A learned single judge of this Court granted interim direction in the said Writ Petition directing the respondents to consider the proposal of the fourth respondent-College for regularization of the services of the petitioner in the post of Lecturer. For non implementation of the said order, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 269 of 2004. Pursuant to the same, the respondents issued Memo dated 24.3.2004. Paragraph 6 of the said Memo reads as under: “ Dr.M.V. Satyanarayana Raju, Part Time Lecturer in Telugu, DNR College, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District was not selected by duly constituted Selection Committee as per G.O.Ms.No. 12, Education, dated 10.1.1992. He has not completed the stipulated number of working days as per G.O.Ms.No. 328, Education dated 15.12.1997 and hence he is not eligible for regularization. Keeping in view of this position and after careful examination of the request of the individual; the report of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and considering the report of the management of the College; the Government, hereby reject the request of the individual for regularizing his services as Lecturer in Telugu in PG Course in DNR College, Bhimavaram with effect from 12.8.1991 in the existing vacancy, in view of the fact that his appointment was irregular and in view of the fact that his case was not similar to Sri T.Viswanadha Rao and Dr. R.V. Anuradha.” Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 12492 of 2004, without impleading the competent authority as a party to the Writ Petition and this Court by order dated 10.12.2004 dismissed the said Writ Petition. Thereafter, Questioning the said memo, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition impleading all the parties necessary to the lis. The Government issued necessary orders in G.O.Ms.No.328, Education (CE.III) Department, dated 15th October, 1997, in supersession of its earlier GOs stipulating a scheme for regularization of services of part-time lecturers and Part time Junior lecturers working in Private aided Degree/private aided junior colleges. One of the conditions (which is necessary and applicable to the case of the petitioner) to be fulfilled by the petitioner at Norm No.5 reads as follows: “ Only those who have put in a service of 3 academic years as on 30.7.1991 or five academic years as on 25.11.1993 as the case may be, and also continuing in service as on the date of issue of these orders are eligible for regularization. As 120 days are considered to be reasonable number of working days for an academic year, the PTL/PTJLs 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 College Education/Commissioner & Director of Intermediate Education as the case may be. Such certificate shall be issued by the RJD(HC) based on the certificates issued by the Correspondent of the respective college and countersigned by the Principal of the private college along with the certificate of audit for the concerned period.” A perusal of the material on record would reveal that the petitioner had neither completed 360 days with 3 academic years as on 30.7.1991 or nor 600 working days with 5 academic years as on 25.11.1993. Further it is clear from the material on record that the Government have not relaxed any condition to any of the part-time lecturer regarding fulfillment of three/five academic years of temporary services as on 30.7.1991 or 25.11.1993 respectively. The said GO further stipulates that the service put in by a lecturer in private degree colleges cannot be taken into consideration for fulfillment of the conditions of the aforesaid GO. For counting the eligibility of a part-time lecturer service, only service rendered in Government Degree college/Aided colleges (grant-in-aid posts) is considered with or without break. It is also stated that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 328, dated 15.10.1997 are not in force as on today and the said Government Order was annulled vide G.O.Ms.No. 283, dated 3.11.1999. Prior to G.O.Ms.No. 328, dated 15.10.1997, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CEI.II) Department, dated 10.1.1992 stipulating the procedure to be followed for appointment of Lecturers/Junior Lecturers in the private degree and junior colleges. In the said GO, it was added that the Correspondents of the Colleges admitted to aid vide Government Orders shall follow the instructions while obtaining permission to fill up the vacant posts and they should be filled up by clearing back log of reserved categories as already instructed. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the petitioner had not fulfilled the requisite qualifications as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 and that the management of the fourth respondent-college had not obtained prior permission of the second respondent and had not followed the due procedure stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10.1.1992 while appointing the petitioner as Lecturer in its college. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. Therefore, Writ Petition No.7944 of 2005 is liable to be dismissed. In sequel thereto, Writ Petition No.24454 of 2003 is also liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cots in both the Writ Petitions. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 9th October, 2011. Msnro