IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION (APAT) NO: 5 OF 2022 Between: Dr. B.Sreenivasa Murthy, B.H.M.S., S/o. B.Ramanna, aged about 51 years, Part-time junior Lecturer in M.L.T., (Inter Vocational Education), Government Junior College, Rayachoti, Kadapa District, R/o. D.No. 45/79-A, Bose Nagar, Rayachoti. ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District. 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District. 3. The Commissioner of Intermediate Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, Guntur Dist. 4. The Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 5. The Principal, Government Junior College, Rayachoti, Kadapa District ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal Proc.Rfc.No. Voc.1-1/1459/2011, Voc. 1-1/1459/2011 may be call for the records relating to the impugned dated 21-12-2015 and its connected dated 6-10-2016 issued by the - Commissioner of Intermediate Education, A.P., Guntur and quash aside the same and consequently hold that the applicant is entitled for re engagement as Contract Junior Lecturer in M.L.T., with all consequential benefits P|O0*Rc.No; or set- lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 condone the delay of lyear 1 month, 16 days in resubmitting the bundle in the above OA in the interest of justice and to lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: The Commissioner of Intermediate Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, Guntur Dist. pass .. .Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Dr. B.Sreenivasa Murthy, B.H.M.S., S/o. B.Ramanna, aged about 51 years. Part-time junior Lecturer in M.L.T., (Inter Vocational Education), Government Junior College, Rayachoti, Kadapa District, R/o. D.No. 45/79-A, Bose Nagar, Rayachoti. ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District. / 3. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District. 4. The Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 5. The Principal, Government Junior College, Rayachoti, Kadapa District (R2 to R5 are formal parties) .. .Respondents/Respondents 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 grant leave to file counter affidavit in W.P(AT). No.5 of 2022 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr. B. Sreenivasa Murthy (PARTY IN PERSON) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: Order APHC010000182022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Friday, The Twenty First day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition Transfered from APAT No: 5 of 2022 Between: Dr. B.Sreenivasa Murthy ...petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Party in person Counsel for the respondents: 1.GP For Services III The Court made the following: / 2 W.P.(AT).No.5 of 2022 ORDER: Originally this petition was filed vide O.A.No.2107 of 2018 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) to quash or set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.Voc1-1/1459/2011, dated 21.12.2015 and its connected proceeding vide Memo No.Voc.1-2/1459/2011, dated 06.10.2016 issued by the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, A.P., Guntur and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to reengagement as contract junior lecturer in medical lab technician (MLT) with all consequential benefits. On transfer of the case to this High Court, it was renumbered as W.P.(AT).No.5 of 2022. 02. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a part time junior lecturer in MLT (Inter Vocational Education) on 19.07.1997 on hourly basis. When the said post was sought to be filled up through contract junior lecturer by calling for applications through a paper notification dated 12.08.2005 issued by the respondent No.5, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4366 of 2005 before the Tribunal. An order of interim stay was granted on 17.08.2005. When the respondent No.5 had not permitted the petitioner to discharge his duties as part time junior lecturer, the petitioner filed O.A.No.5068 of 2005, in which interim order was granted on 24.11.2005. Further, the petitioner filed C.A.No.1055 of 2005. The respondent No.5 implemented the interim order and allowed the petitioner to join as part time junior lecturer on 16.01.2006. A common order dated 18.08.2009 was passed in O.A.No.4366 of 2005 and O.A.No.5068 of 2005 that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief prayed and if he so desires, he may make an application for the 3 W.P.(AT).No.5of 2022 €/ appointment as contract lecturer and the respondents may consider the case of the petitioner for taking him as contract lecturer in the event of such application made by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a representation on 27.06.2011 to the respondents to implement the status quo order of the government in Memo NO.PSP.6852/IE.1/A2/2005-1, dated 21.11.2005. As there was no response, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6836 of 2011 to direct the respondent No.5 to continue him as part time junior lecturer. The Tribunal passed an interim order on 11.08.2011 directing the respondent No.5 to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner dated 27.06.2011. On the same day, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to implement the interim order dated 11.08.2011, however the respondents rejected his representation. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal finally dismissed O.A.No.6836 of 2011 on 14.02.2012 holding that the petitioner was not entitled for the relief, however if the petitioner makes an application for the post of contract lecturer, the respondents shall consider the same according to the rules. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 24.02.2012 for the post of contract junior lecturer, the respondent No.3 rejected the representation through proceeding RC.No.Voc. 1-1/1459/2011, dated 18.04.2012 observing that re engagement as contract junior lecturer cannot be considered at that stage. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2012 in O.A.No.6836 of 2011, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2610 of 2013 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Writ petition was dismissed on 15.07.2013 holding that if the petitioner was not entitled to the relief for more than one reason, firstly the similar relief sought by the petitioner had been already rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 18.08.2009 in O.A.No.5068 of 2005 which was confirmed by the High Court by order 4 W.P.(AT).No.5of 2022 dated 04.12.2009 in W.P.No.26438 of 2009, which was further confirmed while dismissing a review petition i.e., \/V.P.M.P.No.674 of 2010 filed by the petitioner and as the order had become final, the petitioner is entitled to approach neither the Tribunal nor the High Court seeking the similar relief; and further the appointment of the petitioner on contract basis had been rejected by a reasoned order of the Commissioner of Intermediate Education vide proceeding Rc.No.Vocl- 1/1459/2011, dated 18.04.2012 and that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he ought to have questioned the same in appropriate proceedings. The respondent No.3 ignored that the respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.101, Higher Education (IE-1) Department dated 29.07.2006 that the vocational staff who were engaged after 25.11.1993 up to the year 2000-01 can opt to continue either as contract faculty or as part time junior lecturer. Therefore, the respondent No.3, as per rules, shall accept the petitioner’s option as he was appointed after 25.11.1993 i.e., on 19.07.1997. The respondent No.3 ignored para No.7 of the counter affidavit filed by him in O.A.No.4366 of 2005 wherein it was mentioned that in view of the past service of the petitioner, his candidature for conversion into contract system would have been considered if he had applied to the post of contract lecturer. The respondent No.3 ignored that in the report of Director of Intermediate Education in Lr.Rc.No.Voc.1-1/1459/2005, dated 09.02.2010 submitted to the A.P. State Human Rights Commission in H.R.C.No.496 of 2010 (filed by the petitioner, M.Adinarayana and others of Rayachoti Government College) that continuing the services of the petitioner as part time junior lecturer in MLT Course (vocational) was not feasible for compliance and therefore, the petitioner had been given an opportunity to convert himself as contract faculty keeping in view the academic year and the interest of the students and therefore, the petitioner was entitled V. 5 W.P.(AT).No.5 of 2022 f to be appointed as contract lecturer. However, O.A.No.5823 of 2013 was filed challenging the proceeding Rc.No.Voc.1-1/1459/2011 issued by the respondent No.3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the post of contract junior lecturer, the Tribunal disposed the petition on 25.06.2015 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for re-engagement as contract lecturer in MLT and pass appropriate order within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. As the order was not implemented, the petitioner filed C.A.No.865 of 2015 and the Tribunal issued notices on 07.10.2015 and 07.11.2015. The respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings Rc.No.Voc. 1-1/1459/2011 dated 21.12.2015 informing the petitioner that his request for reengagement as contract faculty is not feasible. Thus, the request was illegally rejected. Based on the proceeding, the Tribunal closed C.A.No.865 of 2015 on 20.01.2016 with liberty to question the proceeding dated 21.12.2015 through a separate petition, if the petitioner is still aggrieved. Later, the respondent No.3 issued memo No.Voc.1 % -2/1459/2011, dated 06.10.2016 that it is not possible to consider the request of the petitioner as per the rules in force. It was issued only to avoid contempt proceedings, without giving any reasons. The respondent No.3 failed to consider that G.O.Ms.No.101, Higher Education, dated 29.07.2006 at para No.3(5) which gave option to the vocational staff as stated supra. The respondents are adamant since the beginning against the petitioner and rejected the claim in one way or the other. The petitioner, hence approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2107 of 2018. The respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit denying the relief stating briefly as follows: 3. W.P.(AT).No.5of2022 The petitioner was engaged by the Principal, Government Junior College, Rayachoti, Kadapa District as part time junior lecturer in medical lab technician (vocational course) on 19.07.1997 on hourly basis. The scheme of part time engagements is prohibited after 25.11.1993 as the Act 2 of 1994 came into force, wherein all irregular appointments were prohibited in offices and establishments under the control of the State Government. As per G.O.Ms.No.143, Higher Education (IE.2) Department, dated 09.10.2000 the vacant posts must be filled by fully qualified persons through College Development Committee on contract basis only, but not on part time hourly basis. Only contract faculty appointments are being permitted by the government with those who are fully qualified and eligible to hold the post on contract basis. The Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad vide Proc.Rc.No.VOC.1-3/595/2005 has accorded permission to engage faculty on contract basis against the second part time post in vocational courses where the student strength is more than 10. The petitioner has not preferred to get converted as contract faculty. The Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad accorded permission for hiring of retired persons as guest faculty in remaining existing vacancies of junior lecturers in Government Junior Colleges in the State vide Proc.Rc.No.Ser.ll-2/2646/2015, dated 27.07.2015 due to ban on engaging contract faculty. The Principal, Government Junior College, Rayachoti vide Proc.Rc.No.Spl./A/2005, dated 01.06.2005 asked the petitioner to convert himself as contract faculty. But, the petitioner declined to work on contract basis. Therefore, the Principal did not allow the petitioner to work as part time junior lecturer on hourly basis. The petitioner, during the absence of regular Principal, took out the attendance registers unauthorizedly and wrote his name and put signatures for all the days from 01.06.2005 to 29.07.2005, whicfi is 7 W.P.(AT).No.5 of 2022 c highly irregular, fraudulent and amounts to tampering office records. Further, when the petitioner refused to accept his assignment to be treated as contract faculty, the Principal sought to fill up the vacancy on contract basis in place of the petitioner through a paper notification. Aggrieved by the issuance of paper notification, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4366 of 2005 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal issued interim directions not to fill up the post of medical lab technician on contract basis. Pursuant to the said order, the post was kept vacant. Further, the petitioner filed another O.A.No.5068 of 2005 for not allowing him to work in the college. The Tribunal in its interim order dated 19.10.2005 directed the respondents to continue the petitioner till further orders. The same was complied vide proceedings dated 16.01.2006, and continued him till final order was issued in the same status. While disposing the above said O.As., the Tribunal, in its final order dated 18.08.2009, felt that the petitioner is not entitled for continuation as part time junior lecturer on hourly basis. Hence, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with. The petitioner challenged the above order before this Court vide W.P.No.26438 of 2009 and the same was dismissed. Further, the petitioner filed review petition vide W.P.M.P.No.674 of 2010 before the High Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2010. The petitioner filed Rev.M.A.No.4252 of 2009 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed the same on 27.01.2010 directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as part time lecturer in terms of clause (5) of para No.3 of G.O.Ms.No.101, Higher Education [IE.1] Department, dated 29.07.2006. The department challenged the Tribunal’s Orders dated 27.01.2010 in W.P.No.13683 of 2010 and W.P.No.13872 of 2010 and the High Court, vide its final order dated 27.10.2010, declared that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and without jurisdiction. The petitioner filed O.A.No.683^ of 2011 8 W.P.(AT).No.5 of 2022 before the Tribunal to continue him as part time junior lecturer on hourly basis. The Tribunal, vide order dated 14.02.2012, dismissed the O.A. an application for the post of same according to a representation dated 24.02.2012 requesting to consider his candidature for contract faculty. The fresh contract faculty will be engaged purely on merit basis only as per the guidelines issued from time to time by the government. The petitioner again filed Review M.A.No.976 of 2012 in O.A.No.6836 of 2011 before the Tribunal to review order dated 14.02.2012. The Tribunal, vide order dated 31.07.2012, dismissed the same. Accordingly, order was issued in CIE's Proc.Rc.No.VOC.1-1/1459/2011, dated 18.04.2012 the request of the petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petition may be dismissed with costs. directing that if the petitioner makes contract lecturer, the respondents to consider the rules. The petitioner made rejecting 4. That apart, the written instructions of the Director, Intermediate Education, A.P. given to the Government Pleader for Services-lll vide Lr.Rc.No.Contract-1/ Instructions/2025, dated 17.03.2025 on record. was placed 5. The petitioner submitted arguments in person after necessary permission was granted. The learned Government Pleader for Services- lll also submitted his arguments. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was denied the relief of reengagement either as part time lecturer or contractual lecturer and he cannot be denied both. He further submitted that since the reengagement as part time lecturer was dealt with in the previous proceedings and he was given opportunity to be reengaged contractual lecturer, the same ought to have been given. He further 6. as r T 11 9 W.P.(AT).No.5of 2022 submitted that he cannot be asked by the respondent No.3 to make an application like a candidate who freshly applies for the post and his representation or request shall be considered in the light of the liberty given to him to seek the reengagement on contractual basis. He earnestly submitted that all his colleagues have been continuing as part time lecturers since they were not asked to convert to the post on contractual basis as they requested to keep the proposal in abeyance to request the government to accommodate them to opt to continue them as part time lecturers, whereas, in the college where he was working, the petitioner was insisted to opt for contractual service against his wish which led to filing of several proceedings all of which finally turned prejudicial to his interest. Therefore, he requested to consider his case empathetically and provide appropriate relief. He further submitted that he has service left for a short period only. The learned Government Pleader for Services-lll submitted that the impugned order was passed as per the rules and that the petitioner has to make application for appointing on contractual basis as per the rules and therefore, if he makes any application as per the eligibility, the same shall be considered. 7. In reply, the petitioner submitted that his age does not permit him to make a fresh application on par with other eligible candidates and it is in violations of principles of natural justice and law as liberty was given to him as per the order referred above. Though initially, the petitioner fought for his engagement as part time lecturer, after closing all the doors for such engagement, by virtue of the liberty given to him, he limited himself to be reengaged as contractual lecturer. On one ground or the other, he cannot be (Jenied 8. 9. 10 W.P.(AT).No.5of2022 both reliefs. As he cannot be reengaged as part time lecturer, the petitioner ought to have been reengaged as contractual lecturer instead of directing him to make a fresh application as a fresh candidate, in view of the liberty given by an order and his request has not fresh appointment. Though, normally eligibility criteria, including age, shall be submitted for emanated like application fulfilling all the an engagement in a post, but, as the case of the petitioner is reengagement, forcing him to adopt the method of appointment applicable to a fresh candidate is incorrect and against the spirit and object of the order passed in favour of the petitioner giving him liberty to submit representation/application which the respondent No.3 shall consider as per rules. The object of the direction to consider the representation as per the rules is to enter into a contract with terms as per the rules and not to eliminate the petitioner out of zone of consideration for being appointed on reengagement as it would certainly disentitle him to make any application, if he has to make an application afresh on par with a fresh candidate. If he has to stand on par with other fresh candidates, there is no need to give him any liberty to make a representation or application for reengagement, because he was not removed from service on any disqualification or blameworthy conduct. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and he shall be engaged as contractual lecturer, however without any past monitory benefits. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside impugned order in Rc.No.Voc1-1/1459/2011, dated 21.12.2015 and its connected proceeding vide Memo No.Voc.1-2/1459/2011, dated 06.10.2016. The respondents are directed to forthwith reengage the petitioner as contractual lecturer in available vacancy within Annamayya District he earlier worked there. ' as 11 W.P.(AT).No.5of2022 There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO registrar DEPU //TRUE COPY// SEi To, FFICER 1. Dr. B.Sreenivasa Murthy, B.H.M.S., years. Part-time junior Lecturer i S/o. B.Ramanna, aged about 51 in M.L.T., (Inter Vocational Education) Government Junior College, Rayaohoti, Kadapa District. R/o. D No’ 45/79-A, Bose Nagar, Rayachoti. (Party-in-Person) Intermediate Ljuntur, Guntur Dist. Intermediate 6. The Principal, Government Junio [OUT^^® SERVICES 8. Three CD Copies Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, Education, Kadapa, Kadapa r College, Rayachoti, Kadapa District ill. High Court of Andhra Pradesh gsg s; HIGH COURT DATED: 21/03/2025 ORDER WP (AT).No.5 of 2022 'l 2 5 MAR 2025 n ^ . Current Section * ^ ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS