IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.7154 of 1997 Between: Dr.B.Uday Kumar and another. … Petitioners And The President & Chairman of General Council, STBC, 26-49, Safilguda, Hyderabad-47 and six others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None for petitioner No.1. Sri O.Manohar Reddy for petitioner No.2. Counsel for the respondents: None for R.1 to R.4. AGP for Higher Education for R.5 & R.6. Sri T.Rajendra Prasad for R.7. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 4 in not paying salaries to the petitioners from the dates of their appointment till they were posted in aided posts, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and the further action of respondents 5 and 6 in not paying salaries to the petitioners though they are working in the aided posts from 5-4-1995 and 1-7-1994 respectively, as illegal. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to continue them as Lecturers in their respective posts. By way of an amendment, the petitioners sought for a direction to respondents 5 and 6 to approve their appointments and declare the action of respondents 1 to 4 in permitting respondent No.7 to work as Lecturer in Commerce in STBC College, Kurnool, from 5-5-1997 as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law. At the outset, it has to be noted that Sri V.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel, who filed the Writ Petition on behalf of the petitioners, represented to the Court that he has given up the vakalat for the petitioners. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel submitted that he is authorized to represent petitioner No.2. Since no one represented petitioner No.1, it is reasonable to presume that petitioner No.1 is not interested in pursuing this Writ Petition as far as he is concerned. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed qua petitioner No.1. Consequently, challenge to the appointment of respondent No.7 made by petitioner No.1 fails and no relief can be granted against respondent No.7. As regards petitioner No.2, the relief claimed by him is two fold: (1) Though he was absorbed in a grant- in-aid post from 1-7-1994, he is entitled to the salary payable for grant-in-aid post from the time of his joining in service on 19-10-1988; and (2) the action of respondents 5 and 6 in not releasing grant-in-aid from 1-7-1994 is illegal. With regard to the first part of the relief, viz., payment of grant-in-aid salary for the period anterior to 1-7-1994, the learned counsel for petitioner No.2 conceded that there is no law under which such a relief could be granted to petitioner No.2. This part of the relief is accordingly rejected. As far as the second part of the relief is concerned, as seen from the stand taken in the counter- affidavit filed by respondent No.5, petitioner No.2 is denied payment of salary in accordance with grant-in- aid on the ground that he was not appointed by the competent authority by following due procedure. He has also taken the stand that while the work load of STBC College warranted only two lecturers in Mathematics, who were working against the two aided posts, the appointment of petitioner No.2 as a third lecturer in a non-existent post is illegal. Though the record does not contain the material pertaining to the authority of the then Principal, who appointed petitioner No.2, and also on the question whether petitioner No.2 was appointed in a non-existent vacancy, these issues were elaborately dealt with by a learned single Judge of this Court, while disposing of this Writ Petition, on an earlier occasion, by order dated 19-3-1999. Since the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 is not present at the hearing and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, representing respondents 5 and 6, is physically present, but unable to assist this Court in any manner, this Court does not have the benefit of relevant material in order to arrive at an independent conclusion. However, a perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge shows that all the relevant material, which was evidently placed before him was dealt with in detail. Though, technically, the said order is not in force as it was set aside only on the short ground that respondent No.7, who was impleaded before the Writ Petition was heard by the learned single Judge, was not served with notice and heard, the Division Bench while disposing of Writ Appeal No.592 of 1999 specifically stated that the Writ Appeal was allowed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Thus, the reasons contained in the earlier order of this Court were not disturbed though the said order was set aside. In the absence of any material, I find it appropriate to rely upon the documents on which the learned single Judge placed reliance to come to the conclusion that the appointment of petitioner No.2 was legally valid. The Board of Education and the General Council of the Samavesam of Telugu Baptist Churches (for short “STBC”) at their meeting held on 19-4-1994 appointed Sri V.N.S.Sundaram, the Principal of S.T.B.C. Degree College, Kurnool as Correspondent for the academic year 1994-95 i.e., from 1-6-1994 to 30-5-1995 and the same was informed to respondents 5 and 6 by the General Secretary in his letter dated 19-4-1994. Again, the Board of Education of the STBC in their meeting held on 30-5-1995 and the General Council Executive at its meeting held on 21-6-1995 resolved to continue Mr.Sundaram as Correspondent for a period of three years from 1-6-1995 to 31-5-1998 i.e., with retrospective effect from 1-6-1995. The Education Secretary of the Institution, vide his letter dated 1-8- 1995 addressed to respondent No.5 sought for approval of the proposal for change of Correspondentship, by enclosing the resolutions of the management proceedings and transfer of Correspondentship form. It, however, appears that no such approval was given and the fact remains that Sri V.N.S.Sundaram was continued as Correspondent. The Director of Higher Education in his proceedings bearing L.Dis.No.2296/DO4/88, dt.23-5-1988 in the context of change in the Correspondentship of V.E.T. Syed Appalaswamy College, Vijayawada, clarified that Section 24(2) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 does not contemplate specific approval by the Director of Higher Education for any change in the Correspondentship of private affiliated colleges and, hence, no orders approving any change need be issued. It is further stated therein that intimation of the name of the new Correspondent to the Director of Higher Education is sufficient. On the basis of the above mentioned material, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that Sri V.N.S. Sundaram was validly appointed as Correspondent at the relevant time when petitioner No.2 was appointed as a Lecturer in Mathematics and that, therefore, there was no merit in the plea of respondents 5 and 6 that he was appointed by an incompetent authority. The learned Judge also delved into the minority status of the Institution in question and, having discussed the relevant material, found that it was a minority Institution and the Education Department had no power to interfere with its internal affairs regarding the appointment of its staff, including the Correspondent, in view of G.O.Rt.No.1596, dated 8-10- 1990. While dealing with the contention that petitioner No.2 was appointed in a non-existent vacancy, the learned single Judge took note of the plea of the Institution that petitioner No.2 was appointed in a vacancy that has arisen due to the promotion of Sri V.E.Palraj, who was working as mathematics Lecturer in an aided post, as Principal with effect from 1-7-1994, and observed that the Government has not denied this plea. On the analysis of the documents discussed above, the contents of which are not denied by any of the respondents, I see no reason whatsoever to come to a different conclusion from the one arrived at by the learned single Judge while disposing of this Writ Petition earlier. As the appointment of petitioner No.2 is in accordance with law, I find no justification for respondents 5 and 6 to withhold approval of the absorption of petitioner No.2 in the aided vacancy and payment of salary from the date of his appointment into the aided vacancy i.e., 1-7-1994. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent of petitioner No.2 only. Respondents 5 and 6 are directed to approve the absorption of petitioner No.2 into the aided vacancy of Lecturer in Mathematics in S.T.B.C. Degree College, Kurnool, and pay him the grant-in-aid salary with effect from 1-7-1994. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:16-12-2008 MNR