THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23334 OF 2007 O R D E R: Till recently, the Educational Institutions established by the Government, or those established by the private institutions that are admitted to Grant-in-Aid, used to cater to the needs of the public, without compromising with the quality of education. Experiments made by the successive Governments have brought about a situation, where the admissions into such institutions depleted to disturbing levels. For instance, vacancies that have arisen, on account of retirement of incumbents, even in important subjects, are not filled, leaving the teaching to be undertaken by Part-timers, or contractual employees. Almost for a decade, no effort was made to make appointments, on regular and merit basis. This process naturally reflected upon the quality of teaching, the percentage of passes, and consequently, the reluctance of the parents to admit their children, in such institutions. Having created such a situation, another set of enthusiastic Heads of Departments started the pruning mechanism. Their object is to verify the existing strength and down size even the available staff pattern. Knowingly or unwittingly, all of them have created a very fertile ground for the private Educational Institutions. Hardly any effort was made to verify the functioning of the private institutions, or to ensure that they conform to the relevant provisions of law. Almost the entire attention was focused on effective liquidation of the Government or Government funded institutions. In stead of taking effective steps, to ensure that the strength in the Government and Government Aided Institutions increases, the Heads of Departments, from time to time, have only focused on redeployment of the staff, to the extent it was found disproportionate to the existing strength. A process, which was started with the teaching staff, was slowly extended to the non-teaching staff also. A stage was brought, whereunder it became possible for filling of non-teaching staff in aided colleges to get absorbed in Government Institutions. This, naturally, encouraged the staff of such institutions, even to sabotage and ensure that a case is made out for them, for being deployed or posted in Government Institutions. The petitioners, who were non-teaching employees of various Aided Junior Colleges, came to be allotted to Government Institutions on “on duty basis”. The petitioners tasted the new assignment and were very comfortable. However, it was short lived. Though at a belated stage, the Government thought it fit to lend its ear to the representations of the managements also, and brought about an element of objectivity in the process. Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.187, Higher Education Department, dated 16.11.2006, was issued, revising the pattern of non-teaching staff in the Aided Junior Colleges. As a sequel to the same, it issued G.O.Ms.No.194, dated 8.10.2007, directing repatriation of the redeployed aided non-teaching staff to the respective parent Aided Junior Colleges. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the redeployment of the petitioners, from the Aided Junior Colleges was after verification of the relevant facts and in accordance with the rules in force. He submits that when the redeployment itself was on account of lack of work load in the Aided Junior Colleges, repatriation would result not only hardship to the petitioner, but also wastage of public funds. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners do not have any vested right to continue at any particular place or institution. He submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact that the managements of the aided institutions were not impleaded as parties. A perusal of the orders, through which the petitioners were redeployed to Government Institutions, discloses that the exercise was preceded by a totally negative and vindictive approach, on the part of the concerned officers towards the Aided and Government Institutions. Except finding fault with the depletion of admissions in such institutions, they did not even remember their statutory obligation, to ensure that vacant posts are filled, through selection process. It appears that the posts were not filled, as an austerity measure. For example, the appointment of a regular lecturer would have resulted in payment of the salary according to pay-scale, which should be roughly about Rs.20,000/- per month, whereas, part-time teachers were engaged by paying not even 1/4th of that. The acute unemployment of qualified persons, was taken advantage of. One after the other show-cause notices were issued to the managements, for the fall in number of admissions, or percentage of passes, whereas, the actual failure was on the part of the Government, in making the appointments. Neither maturity nor responsibility was exhibited, and a substantial section of the society was forcibly driven to approach the private Educational Institutions. A stage has reached, wherein such institutions are able to call the shorts, and the departments of the Government are only functioning as service providing agencies. Unless serious remedial steps are taken, the role of the Government in the Higher Education is prone to become almost ornamental. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed by private Aided Junior Colleges. As the law stands now, they have to be continued in those institutions, and if they are rendered surplus, they must be retrenched, in accordance with law. They are not able to cite any provision, which enables them, or for that matter, the Government, to repatriate or to re-deploy to other institutions, particularly, the Government Institutions. Further, the entry into Government service is required to be, in accordance with the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. The petitioners do not fit into that. The impugned order passed by the Government, in a way, attempts to bring about objectivity in the matter and to discourage the destruction of aided institutions. One serious infirmity in the writ petition is that the petitioners did not implead the managements of the respective aided institutions, in which they were originally appointed. The G.O. itself came to be issued on the representation made by the managements, and any relief granted to the petitioners, would adversely affect the interests of the managements of the concerned institutions. Therefore, it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 10th June 2008 PAN