IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 9075 of 2008 Between: Dr. P. Sambaiah, S/o. Saraiah, Department of Public Administration, Kakatiya University, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Kakatiya University, Rep. by its Registrar, Warangal. 2 Dr. P. Narendra Babu, Head, Department of Public Administration & Human Resource Management, Kakatiya University, Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order bearing No. 210/A2/KU/2008/AO-32, dated 8-3-2008 of the ﬁrst respondent appointing the second respondent as Head of the Department of Public Administration & Human Resource Management ignoring the seniority of the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal and set aside the same and consequently direct the ﬁrst respondent to appoint the petitioner as Head of the Department of Public Administration & Human Resource Management. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.9075 of 2008 ORDER: Initially, the Writ Petition was ﬁled challenging the Order dated 8-3-2008 passed by the 1st respondent appointing the 2nd respondent - Associate Professor of Public Administration, University College, Kakatiya University - as Head, Department of Public Administration and Human Resource Management of Kakatiya University for a period of two years. In W.P.M.P.No.12019 of 2008 an interim order was passed on 1-5-2008, after an elaborate consideration, directing the 1st respondent, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to reconsider the entire issue after putting all the aﬀected persons on notice and pass appropriate orders afresh, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It appears, in pursuance of the said order, the 1st respondent had taken a decision on 27-5-2008 and communicated the same to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner sought amendment of the prayer challenging the said Order dated 27-5-2008 and consequential order dated 5-7-2008 of the 1st respondent. Petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in Government Degree College. Subsequently, he was appointed as a Lecturer in the University service with eﬀect from 11-9- 1992 and became Associate Professor with eﬀect from 16-8- 2003. However, while considering his Career Advancement Scheme, he was conferred with Associate Professorship with retrospective eﬀect from 27-7-1998. Whereas, the 2nd respondent was appointed as a direct recruit in the University services as a Lecturer with eﬀect from 14-8-1992 and was promoted as Associate Professor with eﬀect from 14-8-2001. Therefore, according to the petitioner, though he joined as Lecturer in University service on 11-9-1992, since his CAS was considered later and promoted as Associate Professor with retrospective effect from 27-7-1998 and the 2nd respondent was promoted as Associate Professor with eﬀect from 14-8- 2001, under any circumstances, the 2nd respondent cannot be treated as senior to the petitioner, in the cadre of Associate Professor. Respondent No.1 ﬁled a detailed counter, and also additional counter, denying the allegations made by the petitioner, stating inter alia, that though the petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor, for the purpose of CAS, three years prior to the 2nd respondent, the case of the 2nd respondent was considered for appointment as Head, in view of the fact that the petitioner and 2nd respondent were appointed together in the cadre of Lecturer and the 2nd respondent was above the petitioner in the merit list; therefore, there is no necessity of taking into account the service rendered by the petitioner in the cadre of Associate Professor for the purpose of appointment as Head of the concerned Department. This action is sought to be justiﬁed by referring to G.O.Ms.No.169, Education (UE.2) Department, dated 17-7-1990, particularly, Paragraph-4 of the said G.O., which reads as under: “4. The experience of a person before appointment as a Lecturer, in a Degree College (Government/Private aided), in an equivalent grade in other Colleges (Government and private aided) and the National Laboratories or Research & Development Organizations CSIR/ICAR/DRDO/UGC etc., and U.G.C. Research Scientists be counted as qualifying service for placement in senior scale/selection grade, but not for seniority in Government/Private Colleges (s) Service.” Further, it is stated that as per the said G.O., petitioner was given beneﬁt of taking into account his past service rendered in various Government Colleges prior to his appointment in the University service i.e. 9 years, for the purpose of CAS. The beneﬁt of the G.O. is only for the purpose of giving eﬀect to the CAS, but the service rendered by the petitioner in various Government Colleges prior to his appointment in the University cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. This is also justiﬁed by referring to the above paragraph. It is also stated that the University has adopted the said G.O. in its totality and as such, the petitioner, who was conferred the beneﬁt of CAS under the same G.O., cannot object for not considering his seniority in the University service as per the above paragraph- 4. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Respondent No.2 also ﬁled a counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and supporting the stand of the University. Respondent No.1 passed an order on 27-5-2008 in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 1-5- 2008. The Executive Council has taken a decision considering the case of the petitioner, as per the said resolution by adopting G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 7-7-1990. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the Writ Petition. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned Orders and other material made available on record. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner, though was appointed in the University service with eﬀect from 11-9-1992 as Lecturer, in view of the application of G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 7-7-1990, his past service was considered for the purpose of CAS and, in fact, was promoted as Associate Professor with retrospective eﬀect from 27-7-1998. Whereas, the 2nd respondent was appointed as a direct recruit in the University service on 14-8-1992 and in his due turn, he was promoted as Associate Professor with eﬀect from 14-8-2001. Petitioner had put in more than 9 years of service in Government Degree College prior to his joining in University service and in recognition of the said service, he was promoted as Associate Professor about three years prior to the 2nd respondent. Respondent No.2 has no previous experience whatsoever and he was a direct recruit in the post of Lecturer in the University service. Paragraph 4, as noticed above, indicates that when a Lecturer in a Government/aided College is transferred and posted into another Government College/aided college, he is entitled to reckon the service rendered by him in the previous College for the purpose of CAS alone and not for seniority. This analogy is sought to be applied in the present case saying that G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 7-7-1990 has been adopted by the Executive Council of the University in its totality; therefore, 9 years service rendered by the petitioner in various Government Colleges prior to joining in University service has to be taken into account for the purpose of CAS and it shall not be taken into account for the purpose of seniority. The resolution reads as under: “Minutes of the 31st meeting of the Executive Council held on 4-8-1990 at 11.00 a.m., in the Executive Council Hall, Kakatiya University, Warangal. …………………………….. Item No.31.21: Public Services – Higher Education – Pay Scales – Revised UGC Pay Scales of 1986 to Lecturers in Government and Private Aided Degree Colleges – Career Advancement Scheme – Implementation of G.O.Ms.No.169, dt.7- 71990. ---- Resolved to adopt the G.O.Ms.No.169, dt.7-7-1990 and authorize the Vice-Chancellor to implement the same and to obtain the sanction of the Government for financial commitment.” The said resolution does not indicate, anything, in its clear terms, as to the reckoning of service rendered, by a Lecturer in the Government Colleges, for the purpose of seniority etc., after joining University service. The University, an autonomous body, could have, even if it intended to adopt paragraph-4 of G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 7-7-1990, adopted it in clear terms. It cannot say that by adopting G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 7-7-1990, analogy as contemplated, in the said G.O. is also applicable to the Lecturers/Associate Professors in the University, who have been appointed from Government Degree Colleges. There are no clear guidelines anywhere. The material papers ﬁled by the parties would show that the Executive Council of the University in its 31st meeting held on 4-8-1990 has resolved to adopt G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 7-7-1990 and authorized the Vice Chancellor to implement the same and to obtain sanction of the Government for ﬁnancial commitment. This itself would show that the G.O. was adopted only for the purpose of implementing CAS and the sanction was obtained for the purpose of ﬁnancial commitment alone. There are no clear guidelines laid down in this regard. Nothing prevented the University from laying down clear guidelines for adopting any resolution, by the rule making authority, to say that the service rendered by a Lecturer in the Government Colleges cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority, when such person is appointed in the University service. Except explaining the case of the University supporting the 2nd respondent, no clear cut guidelines are placed before the Court. Thus, it cannot be said that simply because the University has adopted G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 7-7- 1990, the analogy of this nature has to be deduced from paragraph-4 of the said G.O. This sort of approach made by the University has every chance of giving interpretation to suit the circumstances in each case. Therefore, such a submission cannot be countenanced. Looking from a diﬀerent angle, even assuming that the petitioner was appointed to the University service on 11-9- 1992, in view of extension of CAS benefits with effect from 27-7- 1998 by an Order dated 20-12-2000 of the 1st respondent, it must be deemed that he was promoted as Associate Professor with retrospective eﬀect from 27-7-1998. Thus, the petitioner became Associate Professor three years prior to the promotion of the 2nd respondent as Associate Professor. For Headship of a Department, it is the Associate Professor’s seniority, which is admittedly, to be taken into consideration. Thus, the petitioner could not have been ignored, by saying that he was shown below the 2nd respondent in the merit list of Lecturers when he was appointed in the University and therefore, he has to take rank below the 2nd respondent - such a submission cannot be countenanced. Petitioner deﬁnitely a more experienced person having more than 9 years of service in the Government Degree College and being senior to the 2nd respondent in the cadre of Associate Professor in view of his retrospective promotion from 27-7- 1998, could not have been ignored for promotion to the post of Head of the Department, to emphasize, the petitioner is an Associate Professor with eﬀect from 27-7-1998 i.e. 3 years prior to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is the senior in the cadre of Associate Professor, if not in the cadre of Lecturer. Therefore, ignoring the case of petitioner for appointment as Head of Department is nothing but belittling his status, apart from being arbitrary and illegal. For all the above reasons, the impugned Orders are set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner as Head of Department, Public Administration and Human Resource Management in the respondent-University and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 30-9-2008 prk