IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27618 of 1997 Between: 1 V.Visweswara Rao, S/o. V.Ganganna. R/o. 4-40, Chandrampalem, Madhurawada (P.O), Visakahaptnam. 2 K.Satyanarayana, S/o. K.Prakash Rao. C/o. M.D.Raggi, D.No. 48-1-26/1, Reddy Hospital road, S.R.Nagar, Visakhapatnam. 3 P.Tarakeswara Reddy, S/o. P.Venkata Reddy. D.No. 52-6-2, Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam. 4 G.Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Rukmandhar Reddy. R/o. 52-6-4, Resapuvaripalem, Visakahaptnam. 5 J.Satyam, S/o. Late Surya Rao. R/o. 6-12-64, Rajaka Street, Chinna-Waltair, Visakhapatnam. 6 P.Sankara Rao, s/o. Polayya. R/o. Dalavaristreet, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam. 7 R.Shanker Reddy, S/o. Desi Reddy. D.No. 52-7-16, Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam. 8 Mohd.Mustafa, s/o. Mohd. Ismail. R/o. 44 Plot, Venkateswara Railways New Colony, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. 9 T.Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o. Venkata Chalapathi Rao. R/o. T3 Plot, Police Jama, Simhadripuram, H.B.Colony, Visakahapatnam. 10 T.Venkanna, S/o. Venkata Chalapthi Rao. T3 plot, Police Jama, Simharipalem, H.B.Colony, Visakahaptnam. 11 K.Ramakrishna, S/o. appala Konda. Plot 51, Adarsh Nagar, Pedda Waltiar (P), Visakhapatnam. 12 K.Sankara Rao, S/o. appala Konda. Plot 51, Adarsh Nagar, Pedda Waltair (P), Visakhapatnam 13 k.Kondala Rao, S/o. Musalayya. R/o. 8-1-80, Pedda Waltair (P), Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Vice Chancellor and Chairman Board of Governors, INCOR, Andhra University, Waltair, Visakahapatnam. 2 The Registrar, Treasurer, INCOR Andhra University, Waltair, Visakahapatnam. 3 Director, For Coastal and Offshore Research (INCOR), Andhra University, Waltair, Visakahapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.R.VIJAYANANDAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.M.V.RAJA RAM The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment and to absorb them into the service of the Andhra University as per the scheme framed in pursuance of the judgment passed in W.P.No.2024 of 1989 and upheld by the Supreme Court in C.A.No.3739 of 1993. The petitioners also sought for a direction to the respondents to pay arrears of salary. The petitioners were engaged by the Institute for Coastal and Offshore Research (for short ‘INCOR’) established in the year 1983 with the approval of syndicate of Andhra University, as Helpers, Assistants, Investigators, Drivers and Security etc. The said organization was resolved to be disbanded under resolution, dated 31.01.1989 of the former syndicate of the Andhra University and the said resolution was accordingly implemented. As the petitioners and various other employees engaged by INCOR were not re-employed by the Andhra University, they filed W.P.No.2024 of 1989 in this Court for regularization of their services in the Andhra University. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order, dated 09.04.1991, wherein it was, inter alia, held that the workers of previous organization are not entitled to be treated as the employees of the University, but it will be fair for the University to consider and absorb as many employees of the said organization as are eligible and willing to come into the service of the University in suitable posts in the existing vacancies or the vacancies which may arise in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the learned Judge directed the University to evolve a suitable scheme for screening and employing suitable form of staff of the disbanded organization. The said order was questioned in W.A.No.846 of 1991 before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench modified the order of the learned Single Judge. Civil Appeal No.3739 of 1993 filed by the University was allowed by the Supreme Court by restoring the order of the learned Single Judge and setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present writ petition with the grievance that despite framing a scheme by the University, they are not considered for absorption and not paid wages from May 1993 to January 1995. In the counter-affidavit filed by Professor G. Subrahmanyam, the Registrar of the Andhra University, it is, inter alia, mentioned that pending Civil Appeal No.3739 of 1993, the Supreme Court, while staying the operation of the Division Bench judgment, made it clear that the University may continue to work on the scheme prepared in pursuance of the judgment of the learned Single Judge; that in obedience to the said order of the Supreme Court, it constituted a screening committee for absorption of the erstwhile employees of INCOR and that all the petitioners in W.P.No.2024 of 1989 and the erstwhile employees of INCOR were asked to appear before the screening committee at 8 a.m., on 17.07.1993, wherein it is clearly mentioned that if they do not appear before the screening committee, it will be construed that they are not interested for being considered for appointment to the University service. It is further mentioned that in pursuance of the said notice, 5 persons who were respondents 35, 40, 29, 47 and 5, respectively, in the Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, appeared before the screening committee on 17.07.1993 and that out of the said 5 persons, 4 were found eligible for absorption and were accordingly appointed. It is also stated that as the petitioners and others failed to appear before the screening committee on the said date, they lost the right to be considered as per the scheme and therefore, they are not entitled for absorption. At the hearing, Sri R.Vijayanandan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted and placed before this Court a copy of letter, dated 16.07.1993, addressed by Sri B.Kanta Rao, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, to the Registrar of Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, wherein he requested the latter to postpone the screening committee meeting, as the case was posted for hearing before the Supreme Court on 30.07.1993 for final disposal. He specifically requested the University not to act upon the interim order of the Supreme Court. According to the learned counsel, as the Civil Appeal was coming up for hearing before the Supreme Court in a few days from the date of the scheduled interviews, such a request was got made by the petitioners through their counsel and hence, they did not appear. In my considered view, the conduct of the petitioners cannot be approved or appreciated. As evident from the learned advocate’s letter, referred to above, the request to postpone the screening committee meeting was made contrary to the interim orders of the Supreme Court. In other words, the petitioners wanted the University to desist from acting upon the interim order of the highest Court of the land. Such an attitude on the part of the petitioners, who are seeking public employment, cannot be countenanced. The petitioners avoided appearing before the screening committee, on their volition. The valuable opportunity presented to them was dissipated by the petitioners by their own conduct. The petitioners, therefore, cannot have any legitimate grievance against the respondents for not considering their claim, more so, when it was made very clear in the notices sent by the University that if they do not appear on 17.07.1993, it will be deemed that they are not interested in being considered for appointment to the University service. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners in pursuance of the scheme framed by it. As regards the claim for payment of wages from May 1993 to January 1995, in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit, the answering respondent denied the petitioners’ claim that they have worked during the said period. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, asserted that the petitioners have sufficient evidence to show that they have worked during the said period. As this claim falls in the realm of disputed facts, it is not possible for this Court to decide this issue. The petitioners are permitted to file their claim petitions claiming wages within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of such claim petitions, respondent No.2 shall give the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months thereafter. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.Nos.32157 of 1997, 26099 of 1999 and 5145 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated:15.12.2008 GJ