HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.A. No. 795 of 2002 DATED: 27.04.2011 Between:- The Commissioner of Collegiate Education .. Appellant A N D 1. G.Udaya Bhaskara Sarma 2. The Correspondent, Satavahana College 3. The Principal, Satavahana College .. Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 12.12.2001 passed in W.P. No. 10726 of 1993 whereby the learned Single Judge, directed the appellant-Commissioner of Collegiate Education to approve the appointment of the 1st respondent herein, who is the writ petitioner, as Store Keeper in the 2nd respondent-college from the date of joining the duty and declared that the 1st respondent is entitled to all the benefits that flow from the date of his appointment. The appellant states that inasmuch as one of the nominees that is to say the representative of the Director of Higher Education i.e. the Principal of SPR & CVR Government College was not present in the Selection Committee on the date of selection conducted for the post of Store Keeper, necessary approval for appointment of the writ petitioner as Store Keeper was not granted. Now, the main grievance of the appellant-Commissioner of Collegiate Education is that the learned Single Judge, without there being any Selection Committee duly constituted, directed the appellant to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner as Store Keeper. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education in his counter affidavit filed in the writ petition stated that by virtue of the G.O.Ms.No.1119, Education dated 18.12.1976, the Government has constituted a Selection Committee consisting of representatives of the Director of Higher Education, Principal of the College concerned and a representative of the Management, but at the time of selection for the post of Store Keeper, a representative of the Director of Higher Education i.e. the Principal of SPR & CVR Government College, Vijayawada was not present in the committee. However, the learned Single Judge, by placing reliance on the Memo dated 04.01.1978 issued by the Government wherein it is held that; “In the circumstances stated in the reference 2nd cited, Government authorize the Director of Higher Education to permit the District Educational Office/Principals who are his representatives on the Selection Committee of Private Colleges to Depute the Deputy Educational Officer/Senior most Lecturer of the Colleges on Selection Committee meeting in case they are not in a position to attend the meeting in the last minute due to any unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances” directed the appellant to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Store Keeper, by observing that Selection Committee was duly constituted in the present case by virtue of the Memo dated 04.01.1978. It is needless to mention that in any grant-in-aid college, as per Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Grant-in-Aid Code, appointment to any post under non-teaching staff has to be approved by the Selection Committee duly constituted. Even as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writ petitioner was selected and appointed as Store Keeper in the 2nd respondent- institution on 30.12.1989 by a duly constituted Selection Committee. This stand remained unrebutted. Further, the rejection of the approval of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Store Keeper by the appellant on the ground that the Principal of SRR & CVR Government College, Vijayawada was not present in the Committee on the date of selection, is not justifiable, because by virtue of the Proceedings dated 10.02.1978 issued by the Director of Higher Education, Andhra Pradesh wherein the Memo dated 04.01.1978 is reproduced, it can be safely inferred that the selection committee was duly constituted in the present case. The appellant has not made any attempt to disprove the fact that selection committee was duly constituted. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge, by observing that the Selection Committee was duly constituted in the present case, has rightly directed the appellant to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner as Store Keeper in the 2nd respondent-College, and the impugned order dated 12.12.2001 passed in W.P. No. 10726 of 1993 does not suffer from any legal infirmities warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the Writ Appeal is devoid of any merits, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 27.04.2011 _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J bcj