THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 4877 of 2004 Date: .09.2005 Between: Dr. N.Chandra Mouli, s/o. late N.Seshagiri Rao, 42 years, Assistant Professor, Pottisreeramulu Telugu University, Srisailam-518101, Kurnool dist. …Petitioner And 1) The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education (U.E.I-I) Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 3 others …Respondents ORDER: Challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in lr. No.SP.2379/UE.1.1/2001-3, dated 18.06.2002 taking into consideration the service rendered by respondents 3 and 4 in lien vacancies of Assistant Professor for the period from 09.08.1991 to 05.05.1999 for consideration of their claims under CAS and to direct the respondents to exclude the said service for the purpose of CAS, the present Writ Petition is filed. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the 2nd respondent- university as Project Assistant in the year 1987. His services were regularised in the scale of Junior Lecturer and probation was declared, and he has been discharging his duties satisfactorily. Similarly, the respondents 3 and 4 were appointed as Project Assistants with the 2nd respondent-university in 1986 and 1987 respectively and their probation was also declared. Subsequently, the respondents 3 and 4 were selected as Lecturers in two lien vacancies which were advertised as backlog vacancies. Their services were made permanent under the said category vide G.O. Rt. No.673, dated 06.05.1999 along with the petitioner and others. Thereafter, the second respondent fixed inter se seniority wherein the fourth respondent was made senior to the petitioner, against which the petitioner made a representation on 03.08.2002 to revise the seniority by excluding the service rendered by the respondents 3 and 4 in lien vacancies, on which no orders were passed by the second respondent-university. While so, the second respondent issued a circular dated 07.08.2003 calling for applications from eligible teaching staff under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), for which petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 applied for Assistant Professor- senior scale and all of them were interviewed on 13.02.2004. On the same day, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent-university pointing out that for implementation of CAS, adhoc service rendered for more than one year can be considered only if the candidate was appointed by a selection committee appointed as per the UGC guidelines and if the candidate is selected to permanent post from adhoc post after continuing in the adhoc post without any break in service, and that the services of respondents 3 and 4 in lien vacancies can not be considered for CAS. But, the administration of second respondent-university got clearance for the respondents 3 and 4 by getting approval from executive committee bypassing the procedure laid down and forwarded their applications to the Government for CAS, which is contrary to the UGC scheme adopted by the first respondent vide G.O. Ms.No.208, dated 26.09.1999. The service rendered by the respondents 3 and 4 does not qualify for being considered to senior grade under CAS. Hence, the Writ Petition. First respondent filed counter affidavit contending that constitution of local selection committee was perfectly in accordance with the guidelines laid down in statute no.13 in the University Act No.27 of 1985 and counting of service of respondents 3 and 4 in lien vacancy is legitimate as per G.O. Ms. No.208, dated 29.06.1999. It is further contended that respondents 3 and 4 were appointed in regular U.G.C. Lecturer posts in continuation of the ad-hoc service without any break and they got increments in the U.G.C. scale all the years. Therefore, there is no irregularity in selecting them in the lien vacancies and counting their service for CAS. The petitioner ought to have objected the constitution of the local selection committee instead of applying for lien vacancy and attending the interview conducted by the committee. The petitioner failed to substantiate the Rules that were allegedly by-passed by the respondents. The Government passed orders strictly in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the UGC and therefore, there is no deviation from the procedure. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent also runs on the same lines as that of the first respondent and pleaded for dismissal of the Writ Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondents 3 and 4 were appointed by a local selection committee, but not by a duly constituted selection committee, which is required under the UGC rules, and therefore, the service rendered by them can not be taken into account for the purpose of qualifying service as per the G.O. Ms. No.208, dated 26.09.1999; since the respondents 3 and 4 were not selected by a duly constituted selection committee, the Executive Council rejected their cases, but when the second respondent-university referred the same to the Government and the Government allowed duly taking into the adhoc service rendered by them for the purpose of conferring CAS; that the Government has no jurisdiction to issue such proceedings; the interest of the petitioner would be prejudiced in case the adhoc service of the respondents 3 and 4 is taken as a qualifying service; the learned counsel further contended that there is no rule like Section 8 in Statute No.13 as referred to in the statute of the University. Therefore, he prays to allow the Writ Petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Writ Petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands; that he was not selected by the local selection committee; that if really, he was aggrieved by the selection process, he would have challenged the same. The petitioner has no locus to challenge the personal benefit given to the respondents 3 and 4; that no right of the petitioner would be infringed by reason of conferring CAS to the respondents 3 and 4; that the selection of the respondents 3 and 4 took place in the year 1991; that the provisional seniority was prepared in the year 2000 and there was no challenge to the seniority list of 2000 and also the selection process that took place in the year 1991; therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined as a Project Assistant in the second respondent-university in the year 1987 and thereafter, his services were regularised in the scale of Junior Lecturer with retrospective effect and his probation was also declared. The respondents 3 and 4 were also appointed as Project Assistants in the years 1986 and 1987 respectively in the second respondent- university and their probation was also declared as in the case of petitioner. When two vacancies on temporary basis arose as two Lecturers working in the department of History and Culture left the university to join in the University of Hyderabad keeping their lien with the second respondent, the respondents 3 and 4 were selected by the local selection committee as Lecturers in the existing lien vacancies. It is also not in dispute that the said lien vacancies were advertised by the second respondent as backlog vacancies in its advertisement on 04.05.1998 and they were filled up in July, 1998. On 07.08.2003, the respondent no.2 issued a circular inviting applications from eligible candidates for consideration under CAS as per G.O. Ms. No.208, dated 29.06.1999. Rule ‘6’ thereof deals with counting of past service, which reads as follows: “Previous service, without any break as a Lecturer or equivalent, in a University, College, National laboratory or other scientific organization e.g. CSIR, ICAR, DRDI, UGC, ICSSE ICHR and a UGC Research Scientist, should be counted for placement of lecturer in Senior Scale, Selection Grade provided that: 1. the post was in an equivalent grade/scale of pay as the post of Lecturer; 2. the qualification for the post were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post of Lecturer; 3. The candidates who apply for direct recruitment should apply through proper channels; 4. The concerned lecturers possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC for appointment as Lecturers; 5. The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down by the University/State Government/Central Government/Institution’s regulations; 6. The appointment was not ad-hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Ad-hoc service of more than one year duration can be counted provided:- a. the ad-hoc service was of more than one year duration; b. the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and c. the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad-hoc service without any break.” Basing on the above Rule, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents 3 and 4 were not appointed on the recommendations of duly constituted selection committee. Statute 13(1) shows the composition of the selection committee. This composition is in regard to appointment of Professors, Directors, Senior Artists, Readers, Deputy Directors and Associate Artists and Lecturers, Assistant Directors, Junior Artists and Librarians, and the selection committee includes (i) the Vice Chancellor; (ii) three experts from outside the University to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor of whom at least two shall be present in the Selection Committee; (iii) the Dean of the School concerned; and (iv) the Head of the Department concerned. Admittedly, the selection of respondents 3 and 4 as Junior Lecturers was not made by the selection committee. The appointment orders issued to the respondents 3 and 4 would indicate that basing on the recommendations of the local selection committee, they were selected. As a matter of fact, the additional counter affidavit filed by the first respondent would also go to show that a local selection committee constituted for the purpose of filling up of two posts of lecturers. When the Dean of School invited applications for selection of project assistants, all the project assistants including the petitioner applied for the post and in the selection process, the respondents 3 and 4 were selected and the selections were made through open advertisement by selection of a selection committee. Interviews were conducted on 06.08.1991. The petitioner was not qualified at that point of time. If really he was aggrieved by the selection process by a local selection committee, he would have challenged the same. After lapse of 13 or 14 years, he can not turn around and say that the selection process was not by a duly constituted selection committee. In the counter affidavit, it is stated by the second respondent that as per Section 8 of the Statute no.13, which reads as follows: “ (i) if the temporary vacancy is for duration longer than one year, it shall be filled on the advice of the selection committee in accordance with the procedure indicated in the foregoing clauses; provided that if the Vice Chancellor is satisfied that in the interest of work it is necessary to fill the vacancy, the appointment may be made on a purely temporary basis by a local selection committee referred to in sub-clause(ii) for a period not exceeding six months; (ii) if the temporary vacancy is for a period less than a year, an appointment to such vacancy shall be made on the recommendation of a local selection committee consisting of the Dean of the school concerned, the Head of the Department and a nominee of the Vice Chancellor; provided that if the same person holds the offices of the Dean of the school and the Head of the Department, the Selection Committee may consist of two nominees of the Vice-chencellor. Provided further that in case of sudden casual vacancies in teaching posts caused by death or any other reasons, the Vice- chancellor may, in consultation with the Dean of the School and the Head of the Department concerned make a temporary appointment of lecturer for a month; (iii) No teacher appointed temporarily shall, if he is not recommended by a regular Selection Committee for appointment under these statutes, be continued in service on such temporary employment unless he is subsequently selected by a local Selection Committee or a regular selection committee for a temporary or permanent appointment, as the case may be.” Therefore, it is contended by the learned standing counsel for the second respondent that the Vice-chencellor has power to constitute a local selection committee and the local selection committee selected the respondents 3 and 4 as Lecturers in the lien vacancies and therefore, the university has not violated any statute rules in appointing the respondents 3 and 4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no Section 8 in the Statute no.13. But, the same can not be accepted in view of the fact that the respondents produced the Act 27 of 1985 whereunder Section 8 is in existence in Statute no.13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that even if Section 8 in the Statute no.13 is in existence, still the service rendered by the respondents 3 and 4 can not be counted for placement of a Lecturer in senior scale because they were not appointed by duly constituted selection committee. Since the appointments of the respondents 3 and 4 were made basing on the recommendations of a local selection committee, they were appointed for a period of six months and thereafter, their adhoc appointments were being extended from time to time. Therefore, the said service can not be counted for giving the senior scale selection grade. But, the fact remains that the respondents 3 and 4 were on adhoc service for more than one year. Since the respondents 3 and 4 were not selected by a duly constituted selection committee, the grievance of the petitioner is that the services rendered by the respondents 3 and 4 as Lecturers can not be taken as past service for the purpose of placing them in the senior scale selection grade. No doubt, Rule 6 appended to G.O. Ms. No.208, dated 29.06.1999 stipulates that when an incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of a duly constituted selection committee, if the adhoc service is more one year duration, it can be counted. In this case, admittedly, the selection of respondents 3 and 4 was on the recommendations of duly constituted selection committee. Admittedly, the respondents 3 and 4 were selected by the local selection committee. Since they were not selected by a duly constituted selection committee, adhoc appointments were given to the respondents 3 and 4 for a period of six months and they were being extended from time to time. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner that there is violation of Rule 6 because the respondents were not appointed on the recommendations of the duly constituted selection committee. But, at the same time, the respondents 3 and 4 were admittedly selected by duly constituted local selection committee initially for a period of six months in the lien vacancies. Thereafter, their services were extended. There is also no break in the service at any time and increments in UGC scales were given to the respondents 3 and 4. Since Section 8 of the Statute 13 provides that constitution of local selection committee, appointment of respondents 3 and 4 can not be said to be irregular or illegal. Further, as the selection process was not under challenge, their selection can not be questioned. The prayer in this Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the first respondent in lr. No. SP.2379/UE.1.1/2001-3, dated 18.06.2002 taking into consideration the service rendered by respondents 3 and 4 in lien vacancies of Assistant Professor for the period from 09.08.1991 to 05.05.1999 for consideration of their claims under CAS as illegal and consequential direction to respondents to exclude the said service for the purpose of CAS. The impugned order reads as follows: “In the circumstances reported by the Registrar, P.S. Telugu University, Hyderabad in the reference cited, after careful examination, Government hereby communicate the concurrence to count the temporary service from 09.08.1991 to 05.05.1999 rendered by Dr. R.Chandra Sekhar Reddy and Sri P.Apparao as Lecturers in the lien vacancies and to count the temporary service in the lien vacancy for seven and half months ( must be ‘years’) rendered by Dr. V.Venkatramaiah for Career Advancement Scheme, provided if they have drawn the time scale (UGC Scale) and drawn the increments during the above period.” By virtue of this Order, no right of the petitioner has been infringed. The Writ Petition is not by way of public interest and so, the petitioner will not suffer any loss or injury if the respondents 3 and 4 are given benefit under the CAS. The counsel for the second respondent relied on a decision reported in 1976 Vol.2 Supreme Court Service Rulings between Mani Subrat Jain & another v. The State of Haryana & others wherein it is held as follows: “The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something”. He also relied on a decision reported in 1993 Vol.9 Supreme Court Service Rulings between Ratam Chandra Sammant & Ors. V. The Union of India & Ors and 1994 Vol.9 Supreme Court Service Rulings between Ex.Captain Harish uppal v. Union of India & others, wherein it is held as follows: “ A Writ is issued by this Court in favour of a person who has some right. And not for sake of roving enquiry leaving scope for manoeuvring. Delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available in law. In absence of any fresh cause of action or any legislation a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time loses his right as well”. Delay and laches are not applicable in view of the fact that the petitioner has not challenged the selection process. What all he contends is that the service rendered by the respondents 3 and 4 in lien vacancies can not be taken for the purpose of giving CAS, in view of the fact that the respondents 3 and 4 were not selected by a duly constituted selection committee. Even if there are no laches, the petition is devoid of merits on the ground that no statutory or legal right of the petitioner is infringed. In view of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the second respondent that a person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. Therefore, Writ Petition is not maintainable in the absence of any right or any infraction thereof and also in view of the fact that it is not by way of public interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the first respondent has no authority to issue the impugned proceedings. Section 26 of the Telugu University Act, 1985 reads as follows: “The University shall not without the prior approval of the Government, divert earmarked funds for other purposes or upgrade any post or revise the scales of pay of its staff or implement any schemes which involve any matching contribution from the Government or create a post or posts resulting in recurring liability on the Government either immediately or in future”. The second respondent took concurrence from the State Government because counting services of the respondents 3 and 4 was for the purpose of giving benefit of CAS which involves matching contribution from the State Government. Even otherwise, this issue whether the State Government has power to issue proceedings is purely academic which this Court need not resolve in the academic issue. In the absence of any infringement or violation of any legal rights of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Prof. S.A. Siddiqui v. Prof. M.Wajid Khan & others . It is not relevant to the facts of the present case because it deals with promotion between direct recruits and the persons promoted under merit promotion scheme. The learned counsel also relied on another decision in The Direct Recruit Class-II Engg. Officers’ Association & others v. State of Maharashtra & others wherein it is held as follows: “If the initial appointment is made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.” In this case also, the petitioner was selected in the year 1991 not by duly constituted selection committee, but by local selection committee. There was infraction in selecting them under the statutory rules. However, they were continued in the service without any break. Therefore, their period of officiating service has to be counted for the purpose of giving CAS. The learned counsel also relied on another decision in Dr. Rashmi Srivastava v. Vikram University & others. The issue in the above decision is whether the Readers or Professors promoted on merit basis can claim seniority over the directly recruited Readers or Professors on the ground of continuous officiation in service as Readers or Professors. But, that is not the issue before me in this case. Hence, the decision has no application to the facts of the case. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ------------------------- (K.C.Bhanu,J.) .09.2005 DRK