APHC010171022014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19715/2014 Between: Mr.aluvuta Subba Rangaiah Setty, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SYAMSUNDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M SRIKANTH 2. M RAVINDRANATH REDDY 3. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) APHC010220622014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1700/2014 Between: Mr.aluvula.subba Rangaiah Setty, ...PETITIONER AND Sri Ajay Jain Ias ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SYAMSUNDER RAO Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) The Court made the following Common Order : WP.No.19715 of 2014 & CC. No.1700 of 2014 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.19715 of 2014 & CONTEMPT CASE No.1700 of 2014 COMMON ORDER : The petitioner in WP.No.19715 of 2014 has applied for the post of Associate Lecturer in the 5th respondent-college which is under the management of the 4th respondent. The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to pay the emoluments of a Associate Lecturer from 24.11.1996 and also to pay the difference of salary from the said date. This Court vide order dated 15.07.2014 directed the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of four weeks. Aggrieved by non-compliance of the said order CC.No.1700 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner. 2. The writ petition and the contempt case are taken up for hearing for passing a common order. 3. The petitioner applied for the post of Associate Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering Department in pursuance of a notification dated 05.03.1985. The petitioner was appointed as Teaching Assistant vide order dated 10.03.1985 by the 5th respondent. The petitioner was working as Associate Lecturer in Mechanical WP.No.19715 of 2014 & CC. No.1700 of 2014 Engineering with effect from 24.11.1986 and was also extended the minimum scale at the existing level. 4. The State Government has issued GOMs.No.948, dated 23.12.1982 for unification of cadres of Demonstrators and Assistant Lecturers in the Government Polytechnics. The petitioner made a representation dated 09.11.2009 seeking to redesignate his post as Associate Lecturer and also extend the monitory benefits. The 3rd respondent issued a memo to all the Principals of Private Polytechnics for initiating appropriate action to redesignate the post of Associate Lecturers to all those persons who had been appointed as Demonstrators with Diploma qualifications after 01.04.1981. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was discharging the duty of an Associate Lecturer all through his career and he was also sent for evaluation of papers as a Associate Lecturer vide proceedings dated 24.04.2009. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for drawing the pay of an Associate Lecturer as he was discharging the role of an Associate Lecturer. It is submitted that his services were utilized by the respondents 4 and 5 as Associate Lecturer. However, was not paid the emoluments as that of the WP.No.19715 of 2014 & CC. No.1700 of 2014 cadre of Associate Lecturer. The petitioner was worked as an Associate Lecturer from 24.11.1986. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 submit that the petitioner did not have three years experience for appointment as Associate Lecturer; as such, he was appointed as Teaching Assistant. It is submitted that the petitioner has also attained the age of superannuation 30.05.2019. It is also submits that the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition against the Private Educational Institution such as the respondents 4 and 5. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on Army Welfare Educational Society Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma and others1. A private contract between two private individuals cannot become the subject matter of adjudication before a High Court, more so when the dispute is in reference to the service issue of a party to the private agreement/contract. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued orders of appointment by the 5th respondent to work as Technical Assistant on a consolidated pay on 10.03.1985. The respondents 4 and 5 are private entities and are not discharging any public duty. The method of appointment adopted by the respondents 4 and 5 is as per their requirement and cannot be considered as a regular 1 2024 SCC Online SC 1683 WP.No.19715 of 2014 & CC. No.1700 of 2014 recruitment which required either the concurrence or consultation of the respondents 1 to 3. This makes it amply clear that the petitioner is engaged by the 4th respondent to work in the 5th respondent-college to fulfill the teaching requirements of the 5th respondent-college. 10. This is a purely private engagement which cannot be considered as employment in a public office. It is also not in dispute that the respondents 4 and 5 are not in receipt of any aid from the State and functioned as a private unaided institution. Accordingly, the writ petition cannot be maintained against the respondents 4 and 5. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. As the writ petition is dismissed on merits CC.No.1700 of 2014 is also dismissed without costs.. 12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 02.04.2025 KGM WP.No.19715 of 2014 & CC. No.1700 of 2014 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.19715 of 2014 & CONTEMPT CASE No.1700 of 2014 Dated 02.04.2025 KGM