APHC010134742019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 5895 OF 2019 Between: G. Pnyanka, D/o. G.Nandaiah, Age 37 years, Occ: Mentor (Chemistry), IIIT- RK Valley Campus, RGUKT-AP, Rajiv Knowledge Valley (Idupulapaya) Village, Vempalli Mandalam, Kadapa District-516330 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher (Technical) Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 522503 2. Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies -(AP RGUKT-AP) Flat No.202, 2"^^ Floor, NRI Block (C), Sri Mahendra Enclave, Highway Towers Backside, Thadepalli, Guntur-522001, Rep. by its Registrar 3. The Director, IIIT-RK Valley Campus, RGUKT-AP, Academic Block Ground Floor, Rajiv Knowledge Valley (Idupulapaya) Village, Vempalli Mandalam, Kadapa District-516330 4. The Administrative Officer, IIIT-RK Valley Campus, RGUKT-AP, Academic Block - 2, Ground Floor, Rajiv Knowledge Valley (Idupulapaya) Village, Vempalli Mandalam, Kadapa District -516330 ...RESPONDENTS 0pp. SBI - 1 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not giving continuity of service and not paying arrears of salary to the petitioner from 28.8.2013 to 31.3.2018, though this Hon'ble Court by judgment dt.5.8.2016 in W.P.No.29835/2013, which was confirmed by the judgment dt.18.9.2017 in W.A.No. 1384/2017, set aside the orders dt 13.8.2013 passed by 2nd Respondent accepting petitioner's resignation dt.28.5.2013 though she withdrew the same on 30.5.2013 and worked upto 27.8.2013, vide impugned Service Certificate dt.11.08.2018 issued by the 4* Respondent as illegal unjust, arbitrary, vindictive and violative of Principals of Natural Justice also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the and Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned Service Certificate dt.11.08.2018 with consequential benefits by directing the Respondents to give continuity of service and to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner from 31.3.2018. all 28.8.2013 to lA NO: 1 OF 2niQ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dt.06.09.2018 and pass appropriate orders by suspending the impugned Service dt.11.08.2018 issued by the 4"’ Respondent pending disposal writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SR SRINIVAS BOBBILI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR EDUCATON Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,3 &4: SRI PITHANI Certificate of the above CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, SC FOR RGUKT The Court made the following: ORDER ' APHC010134742019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction^ [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA y WRIT PETITION NO; 5895/2019 Between: ...PETITIONER G Priyanka AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of AP and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRINIVAS BOBBILI Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1. PITHANI CHANDRA SEKHARA REDDY (SC FOR RGUKT) 2.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) y 3. P CHANDRASEKHAR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for; “...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not giving continuity of service and not paying arrears of salary to the petitioner from 28.8.2013 to 31.3.2018 though this Honble Court by judgment dt 5.8.2016 in W.P.No.29835/2013 which was confirmed by the judgment dt.18.9.2017 in W.A.No.1384/2017 set aside the orders dt.13.8.2013 passed by 2nd Respondent accepting petitioperjg^ resignation dt.28.5.2013 though she y s'.:' ■; 2 withdrew the ^ same on 30.5.2013 and worked upto 27.8.2013 vide impugned Service Certificate dt.11.08.2018 issued by the 4th Respondent as illegal unjust arbitrary vindictive and violative of Principals of Natural Justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned Service Certificate dt 11 08 2018 with all consequential benefits by directing the Respondents to give arrears of salary to the petitioner from ' 28.8.2013 to 31.3.2018 and pass...” 2. Heard Sri Srinivas Bobbili, learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher EcJucation. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education submit that they are representing for all Respondents. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would would 4. submit that the Petitioner joined as a Mentor, in Chemistry Department in the campus of Respondent No.3 on 25.09.2009, on contract basis. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the said appointment was ratified and extended for further period of their service vide G.O.No.557 dated 05.08.2010. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the Petitioner has submitted her resignation on 28.05.2013 through e-mail to the Director, IIIT- RK Valley Campus. Immediately thereafter, in a couple of days she has submitted withdrawal of her resignation through e-mail stating that she was suffering from ill-health and applied for medical leave till 10.06.2013. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further would submit that she has reported back to the campus on 10.06.2013. Surprisingly, her resignation accepted, she was denied to continue in the post and as per the proceedings dated .13.08.2013, her resignation was accepted w.e.f.01.06.2013 . Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that she has was preferred Writ f 3 9 Petition No.29835 of 2013 challenging the order passed by the University accepting her resignation'and relieving her from the said post, and the same was allowed. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, an interim order was passed in her favour. Ultimately, the said Writ Petition was allowed on 05.08.2016, holding that the communication of Respondent No.2 therein accepting the resignation of the Petitioner, is invalid. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further alibmit that, being aggrieved by the said orders the Respondent authorities preferred a Writ Appeal No. 1384 of 2017 and the same was dismissed on 18.09.2017. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that, after obtaining approval from the Executive Committee dated 15.02.2018, the t, Petitioner was permitted to join service and she has reported to duty as a Mentor in the campus of Respondent No.3 on 03.04.2018. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioner could not work in the organization of Respondent No.3 because of the attitude of the Respondents in not allowing her to work. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that despite the judicial order in her favour, she could'pot work for five years in the Respondents-University, and hence, she is entitled to get her back wages and also continuity in service treating that she deemed to have been in service. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education I representing Respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the acceptance of resignation order dated 13.08.2013 was challenged in the Writ Petition No.29835 of 2013. By the date of passing of the interim order in that matter. 5. y the Petitioner was not working in the University due to which the contempt case moved by the Petitioner was closed. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that, ultimately the Writ Petition was allowed setting aside the orders passed by the University but the individual did not work physically for a period of five years. It is purely a contract employment and the same will be extended every year basing B)n the performance of an employee. So, the Petitioner is not entitled for the back wages as well as continuity of service for five years. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that it is not the case that Petitioner has failed to join in the ppst during the period of 13.08.2013 to 03.04.2018 but she was not allowed to work. Learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner is deprived of her employment for the reasons beyond her control. The Respondent authorities have not allowed her to work during that time. However, the learnedf’counsel for the further would submit that the Petitioner is not particular about the back wages but her service may be continued along with others, who joined in the very same post along with Petitioner in the year 2009 and whose services have been extended frorp time to time. The Petitioner is also is on the same footing. Learned counsel for the Petitioner finally prays to allow the Writ Petition to the extent of giving continuity of service to the Petitioner from the date of her relieving till the date of her rejoining into such post. Petitioner 5 7. At this juncture, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education would submit that Court may pass appropriate orders, since the individual is not pursuing her relief for back wages. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, the observation , made by the learned Single Judge which was reiterated in the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1384 of 2017 is clear to the effect that the individual having submitted her resignation immediately has taken a contrary decision and submitted withdrawal of her resignation. The fact remains that, before passing the order for acceptance of the resignation, her withdrawal request was pending before the authorities and without considering the same, her resignation was accepted and during that period, she was on medical leave. As rightly pointed 8. out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner could not join in the said post since she was not permitted to report duty. 9. Be that as it may, at the end of the litigation, the order passed by the Court, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal, has been implemented by the Respondent University. In the Writ Appeal there is a categorical finding holding that the impugned order accepting her resignation is bad. It is relevant to extract the operative portion of the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1384 of 2017, which is as follows: If we carefully peruse the proceedings dated 13-08- 2013, whereby the resignation of respondent No. 1 was purportedly accepted, it does not support the stand of the appellants taken in the counter affidavit. As noted hereinbefore, it is the pleaded case of the appellants that on the next day of respondent No. 1 sending her resignation i.e. on 29-05-2013, the same was accepted. Surprisingly proceedings dated 29-Q5-2013 have not been referred 7. 6 to in the order dated 13-08-2013. On the contrary, it refers to the purported representation dated 10-06-2012 received from respondent No. 1 and Vice Chancellor's orders dated 31-07-2013. Neither of these proceedings have seen the^ light of the day. If respondent No. 1's resignation was accepted'"on 29-05-2013, she would not have been permitted to resume duty on 10-06-2013 and continued till 31-07-2013. Even the so called proceedings dated 13- 08-2013 were communicated to respondent No. 1 only on 28-08- 2013. Learned counsel for the appellants failed to explain the above inherent contradictions between their stand taken in the counter affidavit and the contents of proceedings dated 13-08-2013. We are therefore of the opinion that the plea of the appellants that the resignation of respondent No. 1 was accepted on 29-05-2017, is an obvious afterthought. The learned single judge in our opinion is therefore Justified in allowing the Writ Petition. Hence, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record for interference with the order under appeal. 8. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. ” In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the action of the Respondents in accepting the resignation of the Petitioner dated 28.05.2013 though she withdrew the same on 30.05.2013, and the issuance of the impugned Service Certificate dated 11.08.2018 by excluding her service from 28.08.2013 to 31.03.2018, is not tenable. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, as the Petitioner suffered from severe ill-health, she tendered her resignation on 28.05.2013, however, immediately i.e., on 30.05.2013 she withdrew the same and requested to grant leave for one week and also requested not to consider her resignation dated 28.05.2013. Despite the same. Respondents accepted her resignation w.e.f 01.06.2013. Petitioner cannot be deprived of her employment fqr the reasons beyond her control and without her fault, she was not permitted by the Respondent- Authorities to join duty. As the Respondents have not complied with the interim order dated 11.10.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.No.29835/2013 10. The rf 1 • directing the University Authorities to continue her in service, the Petitioner filed Contempt Case No.642 of 2014 and the same was closed on the ground that the Petitioner was not on duty as on that day, because, the representation of the Petitioner to join duty was not considered. 11. In that view of the matter, considering the plea of the Petitioner, without causing any prejudice and financial loss to the University, the Writ Petition is partly allowed setting aside the Service Certificate dated 11.08.2018. The individual is entitled for continuation of service from 28.08.2013 to 31.03.2018 notionally, without any monetary benefit for the said period, and she is also entitled to the same salary along with her colleagues, who joined in service in the same batch. There shall be no order as to Costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sdl- U. SR!DEV! ASSISTANT REGISTRAR : //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SECTI To, The Principal Secretary, Higher (Technical) Education Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 522503 2. The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies-AP (RGUKT-AP), Flat No.202, 2 Enclave, Opp. SBI Highway Towers Backside, Thadepalli, Guntur- 522001, 3. The Director, IIIT-RK Valley Campus, RGUKT-AP, Academic Block - 1, Ground Floor, Rajiv Knowledge Valley (Idupulapaya) Village, Vempalli Mandalam, Kadapa District-516330 4. The Administrative Officer, IIIT-RK Valley Campus, RGUKT-AP, Academic Block - 2, Ground Floor, Rajiv Knowledge Valley (Idupulapaya) Village, Vempalli Mandalam, Kadapa District-516330 5. One CC to Sri Srinivas Bobbili, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Pithani Chandrasekhara Reddy (SC for RGUKT) [OPUC] 7. Two CC’s to GP for Education, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 8. Three CD Copies, ssb 1. Floor, NRI Block (C), Sri Mahendra nd A '"lip HIGH COURT DATED:24/06/2025 ORDER WP No.5895 of 2019 I n 'joi 2n?5 ^ . Current Section . OV # PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS