HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 4602 OF 2005 DATED 18T H AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN Dr. Md.Aijuddin Hamed ….Petitioner and The Govt. of A.P., rep. By its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 4602 OF 2005 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus to declare action of the ﬁrst and second respondents in rejecting proposal sent by the third respondent-college for admitting post held by the petitioner into grant-in- aid as illegal and arbitrary, and, to set aside the Memo No.5808/CE-II.2/2003-2, dated14.12.2004 issued by the ﬁrst respondent and communicated by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Dis.No.1998/Admn.V.1/2004,dated;18.12.2004,and consequently to direct the ﬁrst and second respondents to admit the post held by the petitioner into the grant- in-aid with eﬀect from 27.3.2001 duly extending all the consequential benefits. It appears, petitioner was appointed as lecturer in Urdu in the third respondent-college with eﬀect from 22.06.1990 in an un-aided vacancy and he served in the said post upto 28.2.1997. On 1.3.1997 an aided vacancy of Urdu lecturer arose due to retirement of Urdu lecturer on 28.02.1997. Therefore, a Selection Committee was constituted for ﬁlling up of the post of lecturer in Urdu against the aided vacancy. When the case of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that he was not selected by a properly constituted Selection Committee, he ﬁled Writ Petition No. 6102 of 2004 before this Court and the said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 12.08.2004 directing the ﬁrst and second respondents to consider the proposals dated 27.3.2001 sent by the third respondent-college and also the representation dated 25.6.2003 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. However, the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.12.2004 based on G.O.Ms.No. 905, Education, dated 21.9.1976. Hence this Writ Petition. The respondents ﬁled counter aﬃdavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. However, it is asserted that since the selection of the petitioner as lecturer in Urdu was not made by a properly constituted Selection Committee, i.e. the Selection Committee was constituted in the absence of the departmental representative, he was not entitled for regularization of his services in the aided vacancy. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side. Perused the entire material available on record. The facts are not much in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the selection of the petitioner was made by a Section Committee which was not properly constituted on the ground that departmental representative was not present in the Committee. But it is to be seen that the aided vacancy of Urdu Lecturer arose on 28.02.1997 and the petitioner has been working as lecturer in Urdu in the third respondent college right from 22.6.1990 and by the time the impugned order was passed, he has put in more than 14 years service. Therefore, the rejection of the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Urdu Lecturer in the aided vacancy on the ground that the Selection Committee constituted without participation of the departmental representative does not appear to re reasonable. Under G.O.Ms.No. 765, Education (W) Department, dated 30.07.1981 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the procedure for recruitment of teachers in the private colleges was amended. The said G.O. reads as under: “GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT Recruitment of teachers in the private colleges— procedure—Amendment-issue. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------- Education (W) Department G.O.Ms.No. 765 dated 30th July, 1981 Read: G.O.Ms.No. 985, Education, dated 2.9.1976 ORDER: In the G.O. read above, orders were issued prescribing the procedure for appointment of teaching staﬀ on a stop-gap basis in private aﬃliated colleges through a selection committee consisting of the representatives of the management, two professors or Readers representing the University to which the college is aﬃliated and representative of the Director of Higher Education. 2. In the light of the judgment of the High Court in W.P. Nos. 3574/77 and W.P.No. 6596 and batch/80, Government direct that the minority institutions be exempted from the procedure prescribed in the G.O. read above in respect of appointment of teaching staff in their institutions. 4. The orders in the G.O. read above are deemed to have been modified to the above extent. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNER OF ANDHRA PRADESH) Sd/- M.Gopalkrishnan Secretary to Government” Further under G.O.Ms.No. 526, Education (Rules), dated 21st December, 1988, whereunder Rules, namely, The Andhra Pradesh Minority Educational Institutions (Educational, Recognition and Regulation)Rules, 1988, relating to the general guide lines for the establishment, recognition and regulation of minority educational institutions under the private management are framed. Rule 8(1) of the said rules reads as under: “ (1) It is open for the educational agency to constitute Staﬀ Selection Committee on the lines prescribed by the Government for other private educational institutions or to adopt Staﬀ Selection Committee of their own choice with or without a government representative. (However there shall be a subject expert), in the latter case the management will not be eligible for ﬁnancial aid from the Government.” It was further relaxed vide G.O.Ms.No. 1596, dated 8.10. 1990. Clause 2(d) of the said G.O. reads as under: “ In primary and Upper Primary Schools, whether Minority or non-minority, and all other Minority Institutions, there shall be no Government nominees on the staﬀ selection committees and in respect of non-minority high schools/colleges the concerned Head of the Department or any of his nominees may represent Government.” From a combined reading of the above, it is clear that the procedure to constitute Selection Committee with the departmental representative for selection of lecturers for appointment against the aided vacancies in the minority institutions was dispensed with and this procedure was not available as on the date when the impugned order dated 14.12.2004 was passed. It may not be out of place to mention that under the similar circumstances, when the departmental representative was not part of the Selection Committee constituted for selection of lecturers in the minority and non minority institutions, the Government has ratiﬁed such appointments and regularised the services of lecturers so appointed. Why such a beneﬁt is not extended to the petitioner is not known. On some technical reason or the other, the case of the petitioner has been rejected without any basis. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents failed to look into the matter in proper perspective, in particular as per the guidelines issues by the Government from time to time in respect of the selection of lecturers for appointing them in the aided vacancies in minority institutions. For the foregoing reasons, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption in the aided vacancy of Urdu Lecturer in the third respondent-college with eﬀect from 27.03.2001 by ratifying the selection made by the Selection Committee on 01.03.1997 and pass appropriate orders by extending all the consequential beneﬁts, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 18T H AUGUST, 2010. Msnr.