IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1547 of 2008 AND WRIT APPEAL NO : 1633 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 31/10/2008 in WP NO : 9490 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Oriental Urdu College, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Correspondent Professor Yousuf Kamal S/o. Mir Abbas Ali, aged about 68 Years, R/o. H.No. 22-2-277, Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Syed Baba Moinuddin Quadri, S/o. Syed Kareemuddin, R/o. H.No. 2-4-692/1/3, Haraj Penta, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. 2 Government of Andhra pradesh, rep. by the Prl. Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 4 The Commissionerate of Collegiate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad rep. by its Commissioner. 5 Dr. A. Mukkaram Syed Fazlullah, Lecturer in Urdu, Oriental Urdu College, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mrs. M.SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: G.P. FOR HIGHER EDN. Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : Mr. C. DAMODAR REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1633 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 31/10/2008 in WP NO : 9490 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Dr.A.Mukarram Syed Fazlullah S/o.Syed Samiullah Himayath Nagar,Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Syed Baba Moinuddin Quadri S/o.Syed Kareemuddin Quadri Residing at H.No.2-4-892,Harajpenta Kachiguda,Hyderabad 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad 4 The Commissioner of Collegiate Education,Nampally Hyderabad 5 Oriental Urdu College, Himayath Nagar,Hyderabad Rep.by its Secretary-cum-Correspondent. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.C.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mrs. M. SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.5 Mr. G. VIDYASAGAR The Division Bench of this Court made the following : (Common Judgment follows 3rd page) THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1547 of 2008 AND WRIT APPEAL NO : 1633 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T. Meena Kumari). WA.No. 1547 of 2008 is filed by the Oriental Urdu College, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, represented by its Secretary-cum- Correspondent, namely, Professor Yousuf Kamal, against the orders dated 31-10-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in WVMP.No. 1851 of 2008 in WPMP.No. 12526 of 2008 in WP.No. 9490 of 2008, whereby he dismissed the WVMP.No1851 of 2008 and the interim suspension granted earlier was made absolute in view of the letter dated 21-4-2006 issued by the Vice Chancellor of the Osmania University, Hyderabad. 2. WA.No. 1633 of 2008 is filed by the respondent No.5 namely Dr.A. Mukkaram Syed Fazlullah (for short hereinafter referred to as the appellant) in WA.No.1547 of 2008 against the orders dated 31-10-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in WVMP.No. 1851 of 2008 in WPMP.No. 12526 of 2008 in WP.No. 9490 of 2008, whereby he dismissed the WVMP.No1851 of 2008 and the interim suspension granted earlier was made absolute in view of the letter dated 21-4- 2006 issued by the Vice Chancellor of the Osmania University, Hyderabad. 3. As common question of fact and law are involved in these writ appeals, they were clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The background facts leading to the filing of the above writ appeals are as follows: The appellant in WA.No.1547 of 2008 had issued a notification in the year 1996 inviting applications for (4) four Urdu Lecturer Posts and (1) Post of Lecturer in Arabic. The Selection Committee in its meeting held on 29-8-1996 selected eight candidates including the writ petitioner-first respondent whose name finds at serial No.6 and the fifth respondent at serial No.4. WP.No. 24440 of 1996 is filed by Dr. Athaullah Khan and two others to consider their candidature and this Court by an order dated 10-2-1997 allowed the said writ petition and directed to offer the appointments to writ petitioners therein within two weeks. Aggrieved by the same, WA.No. 685 of 1997 was filed. The Division Bench of this Court modified the order leaving it open to the College either to advertise afresh or to proceed to make recruitment from the panel in question excluding the names of such persons who are found to have used false certificates or to decide upon the desirability of recruitment by any other mode. It was also clarified that the management shall not deny to any person whose name is excluded from the panel on the ground that he has used the false certificate in accordance with law. It is stated that the management forwarded the candidature of four persons whose names are finding place at serial Nos.2, 6, 7 and 8 in the panel to the Commissionerate of Collegiate Education. On a representation made by the fifth respondent, the Commissionerate of Collegiate Education vide Proceedings dated 26-9-1997 directed the management to re-examine the names of fifth respondent and similarly situated persons on the basis of the relevant merit among the selected candidates. The writ petitioner filed WP.No.24537 of 1997 challenging the proceedings of the Commissionerate of Collegiate Education dated 26-9-1997. The fifth respondent has filed WP.No.28337 of 1997 for implementation of the orders dated 26-9-1997. Another WP.No.30790 of 1997 was filed by the writ petitioner. This Court by a common order dated 23-3-1998 quashed the Proceedings dated 26-9-1997 and directed the Director of Collegiate Education to consider the recommendations made by the management vide its letter dated 03-7-1997. In terms of the directions of this Court dated 23-3-1998 the writ petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Urdu vide Proceedings dated 15-6-1998. W.A.No. 1530 of 1998 and WA.1291 of 1999 were filed challenging the orders of the learned single Judge dated 23-3-1998. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 4-4-2002 allowed the writ appeals and directed the Selection Committee to consider the claim of the writ petitioner as well as fifth respondent afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both of them to place the material in support of their respective claims and finalize the selection. Meanwhile, the appointment of the writ petitioner as Lecturer in Urdu was allowed to continue. It is further stated that in pursuance of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court dated 04-4-2002 a Selection Committee was constituted and Selection Committee met on 01-8-2002. The recommendations of the Selection Committee selecting the fifth respondent was approved by the Director of Collegiate Education vide proceedings dated 13-9-2002. Accordingly, by proceedings dated 16-9- 2002, the fifth respondent herein was appointed as Lecturer in Urdu and the services of the writ petitioner were terminated. It is also stated that the writ petitioner filed CC.No.1489 of 2002 alleging violation of the directions given by the Division Bench of this court dated 04-4- 2002. The Division Bench directed the Governing Body to constitute a Selection Committee and scrutinize the applications of the writ petitioners and the fifth respondent and take a decision. In terms of the directions given in CC.NO.1489 of 2002, dated 16-4- 2003, another Selection Committee was constituted and the said Selection Committee met on 15-5-2003. The said Selection Committee also recorded that the fifth respondent is better qualified in preference to the writ petitioner. The said decision was also communicated to the writ petitioner on 24-5-2003. The writ petitioner again filed WP.No.25911 of 2003 challenging the proceedings dated 13-9-2002 and proceedings dated 16-9-2002 appointing the fifth respondent as Lecturer in Urdu. But the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 26-11-2007. It is stated that the Director of Collegiate Education has ordered for an inquiry into the irregularities committee by the management while making appointment by proceedings dated 12-6-2006. The said inquiry is with regard to the Selection Committee proceedings held on 15-5-2003. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 19-9-2007, the Commissionerate of Collegiate Education terminated the services of the fifth respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the fifth respondent preferred an appeal to the Government. The management also preferred an appeal against the proceedings of the Commissionerate of Collegiate Education. The fifth respondent also approached this Court by filing WP.No.22568 of 2007 seeking stay of the proceedings of the Commissionerate of Collegiate Education, dated 19-9-2007. In terms of the directions of this Court, the Government through proceedings dated 18-12-2007, granted statusquo till the disposal of the appeal. Since, the fifth respondent was not relieved of duties as on that date, he was continued as Lecturer of Urdu. The Government vide GO.Rt.No.208 dated 03-3-2008 allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Commissionerate of Collegiate Education. Aggrieved by the orders of the Government in GO.Rt.No. 208, Higher Education (CE-II) Department, dated 03-3-2008, WP.No.9490 of 2008 is filed. The learned single Judge of this Court by an order dated 29-4-2008 granted interim suspension of the said GO.Rt.No.208, dated 03-3-2008. Thereafter, a vacate stay petition was filed detailing the facts leading to the selection of the fifth respondent, however, the learned single Judge without going into the merits of the case and without adverting to the averments made in the vacate stay petition by an order dated 31-10-2008, made the interim stay absolute and posted the writ petition for final hearing on 15-3-2009. Questioning the orders dated 31-10-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in WVMP.No. 1851 of 2008 in WPMP.No. 12526 of 2008 in WP.No. 9490 of 2008, these writ appeals are filed. 5. Sri G.Vidyasagar, the learned counsel for the appellant in WA.No.1547 of 2008 firstly contended that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that granting of stay of GO.Rt.No.208, dated 03-3-2008 would adversely affect the interests of the minority institution as well as the students community in particular. By virtue of the orders, there is deficiency of Lecturers in Urdu. The learned Judge gravely erred in referring to letter dated 21-4-2006, as the said letter is addressed to the Principal, Government Degree College of Women refers to the minutes of the Selection Committee meeting held on 15-5- 2003. As per the said letter, he was not a party for the handwritten matter in the minutes and he is of the view that such minutes were not written on the day of Selection Committee and therefore observed that no cognizance in the hand written scripts to be taken. The learned counsel further contended that the contents of the said letter has not been appreciated by the learned single Judge. Moreover, in the meeting held on 15-5-2003, a Committee of four members; namely, Mr.S.A. Mannan, Chairman, Prof. Mirza Akbar Ali Baig, I/c. Secretary, Prof. M.S. Siddique, Osmania University Nominee and Prof. Mohd. Afzaluddin, subject expert nominated by Osmania University met and recorded that the fifth respondent in this writ appeal is better qualified to that of the writ petitioner. They have also made an endorsement that the experience certificate submitted by the fifth respondent may be inquired into. Thereafter, the Chairman of the Committee has recorded that there is no need of further inquiry as the experience certificate shows that the fifth respondent was teaching without remuneration on honorary basis. There is also an endorsement of the-then Incharge Secretary that the fifth respondent may be selected. Further the entire proceedings of the Selection Committee dated 15-5-2003 have been the subject matter of the appeal before the Government and the Government having passed the final orders after hearing the parties, as such, continuing interim suspension would not serve any purpose. 6. Sri C. Damodar Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant in WA.No.1633 of 2008 contended that the learned single Judge erred in dismissing the vacate stay petition filed by the appellant herein by referring to a letter dated 21-4-2006. The appellant is a Gold Medalist in M.A. (Urdu) and passed M.Phil in distinction and also completed Ph.D. and to his credit he has better qualification and experience than the first respondent herein. In pursuance of the order dated 04-4-2002 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No. 1530 of 1998 and WA.No. 1291 of 1999, the appellant was selected by the Selection Committee. He further contended that in pursuance of the orders dated 16-4-2003 passed in CC.No.1489 of 2002, the applications of the appellant and the first respondent were again scrutinized by the Selection Committee on 15-5-2003 and the Selection Committee gave a finding that the appellant is better qualified than the first respondent, therefore, the Chairman and Incharge Secretary of the College have concluded the minutes and selected the appellant as Lecturer in Urdu. It is also contended that after five years of the appointment of the appellant as Lecturer in Urdu, the fourth respondent had passed an order dated 19-9-2007 by terminating the services of the appellant without considering the explanation submitted by the appellant. Further the first respondent passed GO.Rt.No.208, dated 03- 3-2008 and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and the College by setting aside the order passed by the fourth respondent after hearing all the parties and gave cogent reasons in the said G.O.Rt.No. 208, dated 03-3-2008. 7. The learned counsel further contended that the interim suspension of G.O.Rt.No.208, dated 03-3-2008 will adversely affect the interest of the students as well as the institution and that apart sufferance of the appellant for non-payment of salary since April, 2008. 8. Per Contra, Smt.Vijayalakshmi representing Smt..M.Shalini, the learned counsel for the first respondent in both the writ appeals contended that by virtue of the order in the writ appeal, the first respondent’s valuable rights for continuation as Lecturer are in jeopardy. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the material filed along with the writ petition, it is succinctly clear that with chequered legal battle, the first respondent herein was successful in being appointed as Lecturer, which was upset erroneously by the impugned order. The learned counsel further contended that the fifth respondent is continuing as Lecturer without being selected by the Selection Committee dated 15-5-2003 and he is continuing as Lecturer on the strength of false certificate and only because of the order in the instant writ appeal. He was never a Lecturer before the order of this Court in instant writ appeal. The same is evident on a reading of the order of this court dated 17-9-2003 passed in CC.No.792 of 2008. She further contended that the impugned order in the writ petition suffers from several legal infirmities. The averment that the College is a minority college is incorrect. The College has not been recognized as minority after 1995-96 either as per GO.Ms.No.526 or GO.Ms.No.1 dated 21-12-1998 and 16-1- 2004 respectively. Therefore, by virtue of the interim order in the instant intra-court appeal, the right of the first respondent to be continued as a Lecturer is at peril. The learned counsel for the first respondent had taken this court through the various proceedings and the above contempt case and prayed to vacate the interim order dated 04-12- 2009 passed in WAMP.No.l3011 of 2008 in WA.No.1547 of 2008 and also dismiss both the writ appeals in limini. 9. Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, the learned counsel for the appellant in WA.No. 1547 of 2008 and Sri C.Damodar Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant in WA.No.1633 of 2008 and as well as Mrs.Vijayalakshmi representing Mrs.M.Shalini, the learned counsel for the first respondent in both the appeals at length and also the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in both the appeals. Perused the order impugned in the writ appeals and examined the connected voluminous record. 10. After hearing both sides and on perusing the voluminous record, it appears that the learned single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in the light of the letter issued by the Vice Chancellor of Osmania University, dated 21-4-2006, continued the interim suspension granted earlier during the pendency of writ petition and made the interim suspension of the said GO.Rt.No.208 in WPMP.No.12526 of 2008 in WP.No.9490 of 2008 as absolute while dismissing the WVMP.Nos.2965 and 1851 of 2008 through an order dated 31-10-2008 and the learned Judge had directed to post the writ petition for final hearing. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is that the fifth respondent is continuing as Lecturer without being selected by the Selection Committee by their minutes dated 15-5-2003 on the strength of false certificates and only because of the order in the instant writ appeal and that the respondent No.5 was never a Lecturer before the order of this Court in instant writ appeal. The same is evident on a reading of the order of this court dated 17.9.2003 passed in CC.No.792 of 2008. The learned counsel for the first respondent argued that the impugned order in the writ petition suffers from several legal infirmities and that apart the fifth respondent has been continuing as Lecturer in Urdu against the undertaking given by the appellant–management, in the above contempt case and it amounts to contempt against contempt. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the learned single Judge had directed to consider the representations of the first respondent-writ petitioner dated 11-10-2007 and 04-12-2007 respectively which were submitted to the fourth respondent and the appellant-college for continuation of the services of the first respondent by an order dated 07-11-2008 passed in WPMP.No.12525 of 2008 in WP.No.9489 of 2008. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and after examining the voluminous record and also keeping in view the chequered events and legal battle between the parties, to avoid hardship to the institution as well as in the academic interest of the students in particular and also in order to balance the interest of both the parties, we deem it appropriate to restore the continuation of the first respondent as Lecturer in Urdu in the appellant-college to his original post, as the voluminous record in our view does not reveal any adverse remarks or any allegation against the first respondent, who was terminated without any justification, when there were posts lying vacant in the appellant-college at that point of time. The fourth respondent-Commissioner and the appellant-Management of the College are directed to pass orders for continuation of the first respondent forthwith. Without adverting to merits or otherwise of the contentions in this regard made on behalf of the fifth respondent, when four posts are lying vacant in the appellant-college, to avoid hardship to the institution as well as in the academic interest of the students in particular and also in order to balance the interest of both the parties, we deem it appropriate to modify the interim suspension orders dated 31-10-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in WVMP.Nos.1851 and 2965 of 2008 in WP.No.9490 of 2008 to that of statusquo in respect of the fifth respondent in WA.No.1547 of 2008 and appellant in WA.No.1633 of 2008 and the fourth respondent as well as the appellant-management of the college are directed to continue the fifth respondent as Lecturer in Urdu in the vacant post, pending adjudication of WP.No.9490 of 2008 by confirming the order of the learned single Judge with reference to the posting of the said writ petition for final hearing. 12. With the above modification in the impugned order, the writ appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. _____________________________ JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY. 16-2-2008. IsL