IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6360 of 2008 Between: Shri I.V. Muralikrishna S/o. Late Shri I. Venkatratnam Jawaharlal Nehrua Technological Institute Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500 085 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Rep. by Registrar , Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500 085 2 Dr.M. Laxmi Narasu , Professor in Bio-Technology Centre for Bio-Technology, Institute of Science and Technology, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 3 The Executive Council, Rep.by its Member Secretary/ Registrar, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ or order or direction more speciﬁcally one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declarign the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned order vide Proceedings No.Univ Order No. 1774/2008 dt. 24-3- 2008 appointing the 2nd respondent herein as Director in charge of Institute of Science and Technology, J.N.T.U. Kukatpally, Hyderabad in the place of the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary, vindictive malaﬁde, violative of principles of natural justice contrary to the ﬁnal orders of this Hon'ble High Court in WP 1227/2006 dt. 7-9-2007 contrary to the 1st Respondent University Order No. 214/183 dt. 30-11-1983 contrary to the appointment Order of the Petitioner as Director as Institute of Science and Technology, J.N.T.U. Hyderabad by the 1st respondent University in Proceedings No. C3/7362/2008(1) dt. 23-1-2008 and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same by directing the 1st respondent University to continue the petitioner as Director of the Institute of Science and Technology pursuant to his appointment order dt. 23-1-2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.KRISHNA MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6360 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are Professors in the Institute of Science and Technology (IST) of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, 1 st respondent herein. One professor, by name Anji Reddy, who is junior to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, was appointed as Director for that Institute. The 2nd respondent ﬁled W.P.No.1227 of 2006 before this Court, challenging the appointment of Anji Reddy. The writ petition was disposed of on 07.09.2007 setting aside the appointment of Anji Reddy and directing the University to consider the matter, by inviting objections from all the concerned persons, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. It was in this context that the objections/opinions from all the Professors in the Institute were called. Through order, dated 23.01.2008, the University appointed the petitioner as Director of the Institute, subject to ratiﬁcation by the Executive Council. The matter was placed before the Executive Council on 11.03.2008. On the basis of the resolution passed on that date, the University issued proceedings, dated 24.03.2008, bringing about cessation of the appointment of the petitioner as Director of the Institute and transferring him as Director of Research and Development Cell. In his place, the 2nd respondent was appointed on in-charge basis. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents, as reﬂected in the proceedings, dated 24.03.2008. He contends that undisputedly, he is a senor most Professor and there was no basis for the impugned order. The University ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit, admitting that the petitioner is the senior most Professor in the Center. It is however stated that the order, dated 23.01.2008 appointing the petitioner as Director, after an exercise was undertaken in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, was not ratiﬁed by the Executive Council and the impugned order was issued in accordance with the resolution of the Council. The 2nd respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit, stating that though the petitioner is the senior most Professor in the center; he has been heading several organizations, as of now, he is part of the Research and Development Cell. It is also stated that the arrangement made through the impugned order is temporary in nature, pending ﬁnalisation of the policy and guidelines for appointment of Directors. Heard Sri B.Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 3, and Sri Balaji, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The controversy as to appointment of Director for IST began with the ﬁling of W.P.No.1227 of 2006 by the 2nd respondent. He pleaded that Sri Anji Reddy is junior to him and he could not have been appointed as Director. His contention was accepted and the writ petition was allowed. While setting aside the appointment of Anji Reddy, this Court directed the University to examine the matter in detail, after inviting the objections from the concerned persons. It was in this context that the opinions/objections were invited from the Professors in the Institute. The petitioner expressed his willingness to be appointed as a Director. Obviously on account of his seniority, the University appointed him as Director, subject to ratiﬁcation by the Executive Council. At its meeting held on 11.03.2008, the Executive Council refused to ratify the appointment of the petitioner. The decision taken by the Executive Council, in this regard, reads as under: 1. Not to ratify the posting of Dr. IV Murali Krishna, Professor of Spatial Information Technology. 2. To keep the post of Director, Institute of Science & Technology vacant and frame the guidelines for the appointment of Directors/Principals and such other posts. 3. To post Dr.M.Lakshmi Narasu, Professor of Biotechnology as In-charge of Institute of Science & Technology relieving Dr. IV Murali Krishna. 4. To post Dr. IV Murali Krishna as Director, Research & Development Cell. The impugned order is issued on the basis of this resolution. Except making its intention clear, not to ratify the appointment of the petitioner as Director, the Executive Council did not mention any reasons therefor. On the one hand, it decided to keep the post vacant and on the other, appointed the 2nd respondent on in-charge basis. The reasons for ignoring the seniority of the petitioner or appointing his junior as In- charge Director were not at all spelt out. When this Court, in categorical terms, directed the respondents to take necessary steps after inviting opinions/objections, there was no basis for the Executive Council to take the decision, as it did on 11.03.2008. In case, there existed any other criteria for appointment of Director, it ought to have mentioned the same. Once the seniority of the petitioner is not disputed, he ought to have been continued as Director, even if any proposal was mooted for formulation of a diﬀerent policy. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, made clear that in case, the University formulates any policy or guidelines, to be followed in the matter of appointing Directors, and the continuance of the petitioner does not accord with such policy, it shall be open to the respondents to take necessary steps. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 27.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6360 of 2008 Date: 27.08.2008 JSU