THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.Nos.24934 of 2001 & 1003 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: The 1st respondent is a P.G. College, admitted to grant-in-aid by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It issued a Memo, dated 22.06.2000, inviting applications for certain teaching positions, including the post of Lecturer in Commerce under unaided category. The petitioner and certain others applied. Through its order, dated 25.07.2000, the 1st respondent appointed the petitioner as Lecturer in Commerce against unaided post on a consolidated pay of Rs.5,000/- per month. By the date of the said appointment, the ban imposed by the Government, vide its memo, dated 17.12.1999, was operating as regards the regular appointments. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.Nos.214 and 215, General Administration Department, dated 08.05.2001. Permission was accorded to the 1st respondent to make appointments against the backlog vacancies of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. W.P.No.24934 of 2001 is filed by the petitioner for a declaration that he is entitled to be absorbed against the S.C. vacancy, which is sought to be filled up through a notification, dated 19.09.2001. This Court granted interim order on 05.12.2001 and thereafter, vacated the same on 11.09.2002. The petitioner filed W.P.No.1003 of 2006 challenging the proceedings, dated 21.12.2005, through which he was informed that his temporary services as Lecturer in Commerce in unaided post stood discontinued with effect from 27.07.2002. This is a sequel to W.P.No.16372 of 2002, which was filed by the petitioner stating that when he reported to duty on 26.07.2002, after a brief spell of absence, respondents 1 and 2 prevented him from joining duty. That writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, through order, dated 21.11.2002. Respondents 1 and 2 filed W.A.No.8 of 2003. The same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 10.11.2005 observing that the petitioner was liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. It was also noted that inasmuch as no order of termination was passed by the time W.P.No.16372 of 2002 was filed, it was left open to respondents 1 and 2 to pass appropriate orders and thereafter, for the petitioner to work out his remedies. On the basis of the same, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 21.11.2005, seeking permission to join duty, and respondents 1 and 2 served the proceedings, dated 21.12.2005 on the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counter affidavits in both the writ petitions. The gist of the same is that the appointment of the petitioner in the year 2000 is purely on consolidated basis and since the approval of the competent authority was not obtained for making that appointment, the question of absorbing the petitioner against the vacancy notified on 19.09.2001 does not arise. It is also stated that the petitioner in fact, submitted his application in response to the notification, but was not selected. As regards the proceedings, dated 21.12.2005, it is stated that in view of the unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner, the Managing Committee has taken a decision to discontinue him with effect from 27.07.2002 and when the communication was about to be given to him, he filed W.P.No.16372 of 2002. They plead that the proceedings, dated 21.12.2005, were served upon him in conformity with the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.8 of 2003. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Papa Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Commerce against an unaided vacancy on a consolidated pay of Rs.5,000/- per month, vide orders, dated 25.07.2000. Though the petitioner contends that the said appointment was made in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the fact remains that it was on consolidated basis. Unless the petitioner was appointed on regular basis against an unaided vacancy, he cannot be considered for regularization against an aided vacancy. The petitioner ought to have protested, when his appointment was made on consolidated basis. An employee appointed on consolidated basis cannot lay any claim to a regular vacancy. The fact that a ban was imposed by the Government on regular appointments would also come in the way of the claim made by the petitioner. The plea that the petitioner must be considered against the aided vacancy notified on 19.09.2001 cannot be accepted for another reason. The petitioner has also submitted his application in response to the notification, but was not selected by the selection committee. The interim order granted by this Court on 05.12.2001 was subsequently vacated. The candidate selected by the committee was appointed. The petitioner did not choose to implead the affected party. Therefore, by operation of the principle of waiver and non-joinder of necessary party, W.P.No.24934 of 2001 becomes untenable. Coming to the proceedings challenged in W.P.No.1003 of 2006, it needs to be noted that a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.8 of 2003 categorically held that the services of the petitioner as Temporary Lecturer in Commerce against unaided vacancy on consolidated pay were liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. It was left open to respondents 1 and 2 to communicate their decision. In the impugned order, it was clearly mentioned that the Managing Committee has taken a decision to discontinue the services of the petitioner from 27.07.2002, in view of his unsatisfactory performance, and even before the same was communicated, he has filed W.P.No.16372 of 2002. Though the discontinuance with retrospective effect cannot be countenanced in law, the right of respondents 1 and 2 to discontinue the services of the petitioner stood recognized by the Division Bench itself. This Court would have considered the affect of the retrospective termination in terms of emoluments, but for the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on consolidated basis and it is not even complained that the petitioner was not paid salary for any period, for which he worked. Acceptance of the claim of the petitioner about his right to be continued in service would run contrary to the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.8 of 2003. Viewed from any angle, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) Date:19.06.2008 JSU THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.Nos.24934 of 2001 & 1003 of 2006 ‘ Date: 19 .06.2008 JSU