IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.34156 of 1997 Between: D.N.R.College, reptd., by its Correspondent Sri G.V.Narasimha Raju, s/o.Ranga Raju, 48 yrs, Bheemavaram, West Godavari District. … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Higher Education for R1 and R.2 Sri J.P.Rao for R.3 This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash G.O.Rt.No.1738, Education (CE.II) Department, dated 3-12-1997 and order dated 1-6-1991 passed by respondents 1 and 2 respectively. Respondent No.3 was appointed as a Lecturer in Commerce in the petitioner-College on 2-9-1966. With effect from 12-2-1979 he was appointed as a Lecturer in Commerce for P.G. Courses in the same College. After acquisition of Chartered Accountant qualification, respondent No.3 approached the petitioner with a request to convert his post as part-time lecturer post to enable him to do private practice as Chartered Accountant. Acceding to his request, the petitioner- College passed resolution dated 22-2-1981 by converting the full time lecturer post into part-time lecturer post, subject to the approval of the Andhra University. The University, by its letter dated 24-3-1981 informed the management of the petitioner-College that it is not in favour of conversion of full time lecturer post to that of part-time lecturer post and it is for the petitioner-College to take an appropriate decision in that regard. After continuing respondent No.3 for more than five and half years, the petitioner-College, by its order dated 27-1-1986 terminated his services. Respondent No.3 then filed Writ Petition No.974 of 1986 questioning the said termination order. By order dated 2-4-1986 this Court directed the petitioner-College to continue respondent No.3 in service. On 4-3-1989 this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by giving liberty to respondent No.3 to file an appeal before the competent authority i.e., Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Rajahmundry, respondent No.2 herein. This Court further directed that till the disposal of the appeal, respondent No.3 shall be continued as lecturer and paid salary for the period for which he worked. Following the said order, respondent No.3 filed an appeal before respondent No.2, who allowed the said appeal by holding that conversion of full time post into part-time post was not legal and that the termination of the services of respondent No.3 by the petitioner, without obtaining prior approval of the competent authority under Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, is illegal. Respondent No.2 further directed that since permitting respondent No.3 to do private practice is contrary to the Grant-in-Aid Code, the petitioner shall pay the entire salary, including the revision of salary in accordance with the UGC scales from its own funds and shall refund to the Government the sum of Rs.1,42,521-45 ps., drawn by it from the grant-in-aid budget and paid to respondent No.3. It was further directed that the petitioner-College shall issue notice to respondent no.3 and call for his option as to whether he wants to continue in service as Lecturer by giving up his private practice as Chartered Accountant or discharge from service; and respondent No.3 shall be eligible for payment salary from the grant-in-aid budget of the petitioner-College only from the date of declaration, if any, made by him to the effect that he wishes to continue in service as Lecturer by giving up his private practice as Chartered Accountant. The further appeal filed by the petitioner-College ended in its dismissal by respondent No.1 in G.O.Rt.No.1738 dated 3-12-1997. Both these orders are questioned in this Writ Petition. It is an admitted fact that though the services of respondent No.3 were terminated on 27-1-1986, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court he was continued till the disposal of the appeal by respondent No.2 and that even thereafter also he was continued as a Lecturer in the petitioner-College till he retired from service during the pendency of this Writ Petition. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.2 shows that the main ground on which he allowed the appeal is that the very conversion of full time post into part-time post and the termination of respondent No.3 on the ground that the University did not permit such conversion is bad. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the order of respondent No.2 to the extent of setting aside the order of termination is not being seriously questioned by the petitioner. But, he submitted that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for respondent No.2 to direct that the petitioner shall bear the salary of respondent No.3 from its own funds. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In his order respondent No.2 gave a categorical finding that despite the purported conversion of full time post into part-time post, the management continued to utilize the services of respondent No.3 like a full time lecturer by allotting him the same work load of ten hours per week, which he was handling prior to conversion as a part-time lecturer, and that respondent No.3 was in the college service continuously handling the same work load. Respondent No.2, therefore, held that respondent No.3 cannot be subjected to any kind of loss for the mistakes or lapses committed by the management of the petitioner-College. Having so held, respondent No.2 directed that the pay and allowances of respondent No.3 in the existing scales of pay from 23-4-1981 and in the revised pay scales of pay from 1-1-1986, including arrears thereof, shall be paid by the management of the petitioner-College from its own funds and no grant-in-aid could be paid to it for the period respondent No.3 practiced as Chartered Accountant while working in the petitioner-College. In my considered view, respondent No.2 committed serious error in giving this direction. Even though the post was converted into part-time post, even according to respondent No.2, respondent No.3 has worked on par with a full time lecturer. The full time post in which respondent No.3 was appointed was a grant- in-aid post. The fact that respondent No.3 devoted his full time on the employment itself shows that even though he has intended to carryon private practice as Chartered Accountant, he has evidently not done that. The very purpose of sanctioning grant-in-aid is to ensure that the teaching staff, who are engaged in the teaching activities in the aided colleges, are paid the prescribed salaries. When the services of respondent No.3 have been utilized by the petitioner-College for imparting education to its students, I do not find any rationale in respondent No.2 to direct that the salaries payable to respondent No.3 should be paid only from out of the management funds, when admittedly respondent No.3 worked as a full time lecturer even after conversion. The tenor of the order of respondent No.2 only suggests that he obviously wanted to mete out punishment to the management of the petitioner- College for the unlawful termination of respondent No.3. Such a power is not inhered in respondent No.2. When once the order of termination is set aside and the purported conversion is held to be illegal, the logical conclusion that should follow is that respondent No.3 should be treated as a regular lecturer working in the grant-in-aid post. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that after conversion, the grant-in-aid post held by respondent No.3 was abolished. In the face of the above mentioned facts, I am of the view that the order of respondent No.2 to the extent that he directed that the salaries payable to respondent No.3 shall be met from out of the petitioner’s own funds cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, that part of the order is quashed. As regards the direction to the petitioner-College to refund the sum of Rs.1,42,521-45 ps., if the said amount was already paid to respondent No.3, the same shall be adjusted towards the salary which is payable to him. If the said sum is not paid, the petitioner shall pay the said sum to respondent No.3 towards the salary payable to him. As regards the period subsequent to passing of the order by respondent No.2, there can be no difficulty because, admittedly, respondent No.3 continued to work as a full time lecturer. Even though the petitioner has not called for the option from respondent No.3, in view of filing of appeal by it and pendency of this Writ Petition, the fact remains that respondent No.3 worked as a full time lecturer and discharged his duties as such till his retirement. Therefore, he is entitled to receive the salaries, which a full time lecturer worked in a grant-in- aid post is entitled to receive, from 1-1-1986 till the date of his retirement. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:03-12-2008 MNR