IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION Nos.14042 and 14091 of 2008 WRIT PETITION No.14042 of 2008 Between: P. Nageswara Rao S/o. P. Babu Rao Senior Grade Lecturer in English, S.K.V.T. College, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Collegiate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 Sri Kandukuri Veeresalingam Theistic College, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Rep. by its Correspondent. 5 Dr. A. B. Santha Rajyam, Reader in Economics, S.K.V.T. College, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in passing orders in Proceedings Rc.No.3024/B1/2007 dt. 19-6-2008 on the appeal ﬁled by the Petitioner before the 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary without power or authority, opposed to principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the 1st Respondent to pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner forthwith and not to fill up the post of principal in 4th Respondent College on regular basis till the disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SUDHEER KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. D.V. SITHARAMA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.5: MR. M. SIVANANDA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 14091 of 2008 Between: Dasari Ramakrishna, S/o. late D.Venkata Rao, Selection Grade Lecturer in Commerce, O/o. the Principal S.K.V.T.College, Rajahmundry. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Kandukuri Veeresalingam Theistic College, Rajamundry, rep. by its Correspondent. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Joint Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, Rajahmundry,East Godavari District. 4 Dr.A.B.Santha Rajyam, W/o. Koteswara Rao, Principal (in-charge) (Reader in Economics) SKVT College, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings Rc.No.3024/B1/2007, dated 19-06-2008, relating to the decision in regard to the ﬁnal seniority of the teaching staﬀ working in S.K.V.T. College, Rajahmundry, issued by Respondent No.3 and to declare that the action 3rd respondent in placing the name of the 4th respondent at No.1 position and placing the name of the petitioner at No.3 position in the order of seniority as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to declare the petitioner as senior to the 4th respondent by revising the said seniority list. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR. D.V. SITHARAMA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&3: GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. M. SIVANANDA KUMAR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Writ Petition Nos.14042 and 14091 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since the subject matter in these two writ petitions is one and the same, both of them are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The controversy between the petitioners and the unoﬃcial respondent namely Smt. A.B.Santha Rajyam in both the writ petitions is about the inter se seniority in the cadre of Lecturer in Sri Kandukuri Veeresalingam Theistic College, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suﬃce to notice that earlier, the petitioner in W.P.No.14042 of 2008 ﬁled W.P.No.9399 of 2008 before this court stating that, questioning the correctness of the seniority list of lecturers dated 29.01.2008, he ﬁled an appeal before the Director of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad, but the same was not considered and no orders have been passed, and he sought for appropriate directions in that regard. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 28.04.2008, directing the Director of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad, to pass orders on the appeal presented by the petitioner therein, against the seniority list dated 29.01.2008, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, duly giving opportunity to the aﬀected parties. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that, contrary to the said order of this Court, instead of the Director of Collegiate Education, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, disposed of the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner in W.P.No.14042 of 2008, vide proceedings dated 19.06.2008, without aﬀording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners or any of the aﬀected parties, declaring the petitioners as juniors to the said Smt A.B. Santha Rajyam, the unoﬃcial respondent. The petitioners allege that by the said action of the respondent authorities, they are being deprived of the promotion to the post of Principal, which is arbitrary and illegal. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education submits that though this Court directed the Director of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad to pass orders on the appeal, in fact, under the statute, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, is the appellate authority and, therefore, he disposed of the appeal. 5. The contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be accepted. When there is an order by this Court, specifically directing the Director of Collegiate Education, A.P. Hyderabad, to pass orders on the appeal, he is under an obligation to comply the said order, and it does not matter as to who is the appellate authority. Therefore, the proceedings issued by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, disposing of the appeal, cannot be said to be valid. 6. Under the above circumstances, the proceedings, dated 19.06.2008, issued by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, are set aside and the Director of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad, is directed to dispose of the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner in W.P.No.14042 of 2008, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly giving the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representatives. It is further directed that the petitioner in W.P.No.14091 of 2008 shall get himself impleaded as a party in the said appeal. It is made clear that the interim suspension granted by this Court in both the writ petitions on 03.07.2008 stands vacated. 7. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 1st September, 2008. IBL