THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :332 of 2008 Date: 20.10.2009 Between: The Government of A.P. represented by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ….APPELLANTS And 1. N. Srinivas and another. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :332 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Although interlocutory application is listed for hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of by this order. This appeal is filed by the Government aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge in Writ Petition No.1969 of 2005, dated 4.10.2007 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent was allowed. The facts in brief are that the 1st respondent herein filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single judge assailing the Government Memo No. CE.II-2-2001-4, dated 20.12.2004 of the 1st appellant and to quash the same. He also sought for a consequential direction to the authorities to regularise his services in the existing grant in aid post of Lecturer in Commerce in Pragathi Maha Vidyala Degree College, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein with all consequential benefits. It is the case of the 1st respondent that he was appointed in an unaided post of Lecturer in Commerce in Pragathi Maha Vidyalaya Degree College, Hyderabad on 25.6.1990. He also seems to have passed National Eligibility Test for Lecturership conducted by the University Grants Commission in January, 1991. The 1st respondent asserts that he is fully qualified and eligible for being appointed as a regular Lecturer. While so, the post of Lecturer in Commerce in the 2nd respondent-College became vacant during the year 1993 consequent on the promotion of one Dr. A. Venkata Ramaiah. It is further stated that the persons similarly situated like him have been absorbed against aided post. Though he was designated as part-time lecturer , he has been discharging the duties and functions on par with the regular lecturers working in the college. He further states that though he obtained directions from this Court for absorption against the grant-in-aid post, the authorities have not considered his claim for absorption/regularisation of his services. While opposing the averments made by the 1st respondent, the 1st appellant filed counter before the learned single judge. It is stated that Dr. R.V. Anuradha was appointed against a grant-in-aid post and the Government through G.O. Rt. No. 160, dated 16.2.2001 ratified the action of the management. It is further stated that the 1st respondent was appointed as a part time lecturer and since he had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in G.O. Ms. No. 328, dated 15.10.1997, he was not entitled for regularisation. The 2nd respondent college also filed a counter affidavit before the learned single judge stating that in pursuance of the proceedings dated 19.3.2001 of the 2nd appellant, two Commerce Lecturers were shifted to aided vacancies with effect from 5.5.2001 and since the 1st respondent was fully eligible, the authorities ought to have considered his case for absorption. Keeping in view the qualifications possessed by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent felt that it is a fit case where the 1st respondent was liable to be absorbed in a grant in aid post. The learned single judge taking into consideration the fact that the 1st respondent has been working as Lecturer for the past 17 years without any blemish and also the fact that he is fully eligible and qualified to hold the post of Lecturer, felt that the 1st respondent is entitled to be considered against the said post. Accordingly, he allowed the writ petition by setting aside the memo dated 20.12.2004 impugned therein. He further directed the authorities to consider the case of the 1st respondent for regularisation of his services by relaxing the selection procedure etc., and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Feeling aggrieved, the department filed the present appeal. On 28.3.2008, a Division Bench of this Court while admitting the writ appeal has stayed the implementation of the order of the learned single judge and the same is in operation. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing on behalf of the department would contend that the 1st respondent would not fit into the scheme envisaged under G.O. Ms. No. 328, dated 15.10.1997. He further submits that as per the scheme, one has to complete three years of service by 1991 or five years of service as on 25.11.1993. The G.O. also stipulates that one has to put in a minimum number of 600 working days within the cut off dates fixed under the said G.O. and since the 1st respondent has not fulfilled the aforesaid conditions, he is not entitled for absorption. On the other hand, Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that even though the 1st respondent did not complete three years of service by 1991 and five years of service as on 25.11.1993, he, however, has completed 600 minimum number of working days as contemplated under the said G.O. He further stated that in similar fact situation, the appellants have regularised the services of one Dr. L.Anuradha, who was working as English Lecturer and they are showing discrimination against the 1st respondent. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in LALJEE DUBEY AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA ([1]). He also brought to our notice of a letter bearing No. 289/Admin-V-1/2007, dated 29.10.2007 addressed by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (C.E.II) Department, dated 29.10.2007 wherein the Commissioner has recommended the case of the 1st respondent for regularisation. He, therefore, submits that the learned single judge was justified in allowing the writ petition and the order of the learned single judge does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference. We had an occasion to go through the entire material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the 1st respondent who was appointed as a part-time lecturer on ad hoc basis had not completed three years of service by 1991 or five years of service as on 25.11.1993. Though the 2nd respondent college filed counter affidavit before the learned single judge, the counter is silent as to the length of service put in by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent, on the contrary has recommended the case of the 1st respondent stating that “considering the merits and qualifications possessed by the 1st respondent, it is a fit case where the 1st respondent is to be absorbed in the existing grant-in-aid post of Lecturer in Commerce.” The counter also does not reveal as to whether the 1st respondent has fulfilled the conditions laid down under G.O. Ms. No. 328, dated 15.10.1997. Even though the learned counsel for the 1st respondent has contended that the appellants have considered the case of the one Dr. R.V. Anuradha and they are showing discrimination to consider his case, but in the instant case, there is no material on record to show that the 1st respondent has completed the minimum number of 600 working days and the counter of the 2nd respondent-college is also silent on this aspect. In the circumstances, we feel it appropriate to modify the order of the learned single judge and direct the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the 1st appellant herein, to consider the case of the 1st respondent for absorption as Lecturer and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the rules, after issuing notice to the 2nd respondent college and after calling for necessary records. Before considering the case of the 1st respondent for absorption/regularisation, the 1st appellant shall also satisfy himself as to whether the 1st respondent had fulfilled the conditions laid down under G.O. Ms. No. 328, dated 15.10.1997, i.e., whether he had completed three years of service by 1991 or five years of service as on 25.11.1993, including the condition as to whether the 1st respondent had completed the minimum number of 600 working days. With the above modification, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 20th October, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb [1] 1973 Supreme Court Service Rulings Page:503