APHC010479092023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI j B TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANANDu^ AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 965 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dt 27.06.2023 in WP No. 967 of 2023 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education (CE.II.1) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, A.P., Amaravathi, Garudadri KK Towers, Ground and Second Floors, Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Colony, Mangalagiri, Guntur Dt., Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Guntur Region Sambasivapet Guntur Andhra Pradesh 522001 Guntur District. ...Appellants/Respondents^_ AND 1. Shaik Shahabuddin, S/o ShaikKhajaMohiuddin, Aged about 53 Lecturer in Zoology, Nedurumalli Balakrishna Reddy Science and Arts College, (N.B.K.R.S and A College), Vidyanagar Village, Kota Mandal, Nellore District - 524 413. years. 2. Smt P Sarada, W/o Dr. A. Lakshminarayana, Aged about 52 years, Lecturer in Zoology, Nedurumalli Balakrishna Reddy Science and Arts College, (N.B.K.RSand A College), Vidyanagar Village, Kota Mandal, Nellore District - 524 413. 3. Nedurumalli Balalcrishna Reddy Science and Arts College, Vidyanagar Village Kota Mandal, Nellore District 524 413 Rep by its Correspondent. ...Respondents/Petitioners lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 suspend the orders dated.27.06.2023 in WP No. 967 of 2023. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Between: 1. Shaik Shahabuddin, S/o ShaikKhajaMohiuddin, Aged about 53 years. Lecturer in Zoology, Nedurumalli Balakrishna Reddy Science and Arts College, (N.B.K.R.S and A College), Vidyanagar Village, Kota Mandal, Nellore District - 524 413. Smt P Sarada, W/o Dr. A. Lakshminarayana, Aged about 52 years. Lecturer in Zoology, Nedurumalli Balakrishna Reddy Science and Arts College, (N.B.K.RSand A College), Vidyanagar Village, Kota Mandal, Nellore District - 524 413. 2. ...Petitioners/Respondents 1 & 2— AND 3. Nedurumalli Balakrishna Reddy Science and Arts College, Vidyanagar Village Kota Mandal, Nellore District 524 413 Rep by its Correspondent. ...Respondent/Respondent No.3 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education (CE.II.1) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Rep. by its Principal Secretary 4. ■ of Collegiate Education, A.P., 5. The Commissioner and Director Amaravathi, Garudadri KK Towers, Ground and Second Floors, Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Colony, Mangalagiri, Guntur Dt., Andhra Pradesh. Director of Collegiate Education, Guntur Region 6. The Regional Joint Sambasivapet Guntur Andhra Pradesh 522001 Guntur District. ...Respondents/Petitioners 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 vacate the interim orders in WA 965 of 2023 dated 04-10-2023. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondents: SRI BALAJI MEDAMALLI The Court made the following Judgment: 'r APHC010479092023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 965/2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is being preferred against the orders dated. 27.06.2023 passed W.P No. 967 of 2023 Between: 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HIGHER EDUCATION (CE.11.1) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2.THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, , A.P., AMARAVATHI, GARUDADRI KK TOWERS, GROUND AND SECOND FLOORS, SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA COLONY, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GUNTUR REGION SAMBASIVAPET GUNTUR ANDHRA PRADESH 522001 GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.SHAIK SHAHABUDDIN, S/0 SHAIKKHAJAMOHIUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, LECTURER IN ZOOLOGY, NEDURUMALLI BALAKRISHNA REDDY SCIENCE AND ARTS COLLEGE, (N.B.K.R.S AND A COLLEGE), VIDYANAGAR VILLAGE, KOTA MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT - 524 413. 2.SMT P SARADA, W/0 DR. A. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, LECTURER IN ZOOLOGY, BALAKRISHNA REDDY SCIENCE AND ARTS COLLEGE, (N.B.K.RSAND A COLLEGE), VIDYANAGAR VILLAGE, KOTA MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT - 524 413. NEDURUMALLI V-. 'mmmt ■■ ■:i'K 2 m 3.NEDURUMALLI BALALCRISHNA REDDY SCIENCE AND ARTS COLLEGE, VIDYANAGAR VILLAGE KOTA MANDAL NELLORE DISTRICT 524 413 REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT. ...RESPONDENT(S); lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 may be pleased to suspend the orders dated.27.06.2023 in WP No. 967 of 2023 and pass such lA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 pleased to vacate the interim oders WA 965/23 dated 04-10-2023 and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.BALAJI MEDAMALLI The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARNIA WRIT APPEAL No.965 of 2023 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.06.2023 in W.P.No.967 of 2023. THE 1. leading to filing of the present Writ Appeal are as under: 2. The facts filed writ petition seeking the writ of mandamus to NO.10017/CE-11-1/2005-4, dated into existing aided The respondents declare the proceedings issued in Memo 3. rejecting the request of absorption consequential direction to the respondents to 29.06.2013, vacancies, as illegal and for a set-aside the same absorb the petitioners in the aided vacancies of Lecturers in Zoology in Respondent No.4 College, with similarly situated persons and further sought for a direction to the respondents to all consequential benefits, on par with the , dehors the ban imposed in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 27.03.2006. have been selected 4. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners committee for unaided iecturer posts by the by duly constituted selection respective private managements into the vacant aided posts of Lecturers in institutions sent proposals The petitioners are eligible for absorption in those institutions and the said requesting the appellants/respondents to absorb the aided vacant posts of Lecturers in their managements. The vide Memo No.10017/CE-ll-1/2005-4, dated 29.06.2013, them in Respondent No.1 rejected the request of the petitioner for absorption into existing aided Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioners filed the vacancies, writ petition before this Court. 5. In the light of the common order passed by the composite High Court of 2012 and batch, dated 20.12.2018 which was passed in favour of the similarly situated persons, the learned Single Judge was I of the writ petitions by setting aside the memo dated direction to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to absorb the petitioners in the aided posts of Lecturers in the respective managements with all consequential benefits. Against the orders of learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed. in W.RNos.7789 pleased to dispose 29.06.2013, with a private the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that permission accorded to the Management of the College to fill up, along with 6. The submit had been other posts, only one post of Zoology. As on the day of according permission to fill up un-aided posts, there is only one aided vacant post in Department of Zoology. But, contrary to the permission accorded to the of the College, they have carried out the selection for two per G.O.Ms.No.12, Education the Management posts in the Department of Zoology as 10.01.1992 and selection have been carried out with Department, dated Five-Member Selection Committee. The learned counsel further contends that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that as per A.P. (Regulation of Appointment to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994) the regularisation of services of the individuals, who are appointed on a temporary basis on or before 25.11.1993 and who did not complete five years of service as on the date, cannot be regularised. As the petitioners were appointed after the cut-off date, i.e. 25.11.1993, they have legitimate right to claim for regularization under the Act. The learned counsel further contends that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the delay of the petitioners in approaching this Court as the similarly situated persons had filed W.P.No.2364 of 2004 before the learned Single Judge, the present petitioners did not assail with the other petitioners in W.PNo.2364 of 2024 in challenging the Government Memo NO.10017/CE.1I-I/2005-4, dated 29.06.2013. As there is considerable delay in approaching this Court on the ground of latches, the learned counsel sought to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the learned Single Judge order. 7. no 8. the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents / writ would submit that the petitioners approached this Court thrice 9. On petitioners and this is the third round of litigation. In the earlier writ petitions filed in the 6 year 2005, this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the claim of the petitioners for absorption. Thereafter, petitioners' claim is rejected by the respondents. Thereafter, rejection order is under challenge in the second round of litigation in the year 2006. Thereafter, the said writ petition was allowed on 11.04.2012, with a direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioners in the vacant aided posts. Thereafter, the respondents kept quiet without implementing the order of this Court. Meanwhile, this Court disposed of a batch of writ petitions filed by the similarly situated persons in W.P.Nos.7789 of 2012 and batch by order dated 20.12.2018 with a direction to absorb them in the vacant aided posts. 10. Complaining non-implementation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2364 of 2006, dated 11.04.2012, the petitioners filed Contempt Case in C.C.No.1675 of 2016 before this Court. 11. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents therein in the Contempt Case, it is averred that the claim of the petitioners for absorption had already been rejected vide Memo No.10017/CE-il-l/2005-4, dated 12. 29.06.2013. 13. The learned counsel contends that only after noticing the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents in the Contempt Case, the petitioners came to know about the rejection vide Memo dated 29.06.2013. 7 of this Court that during the hearing of this It is brought to the notice Writ Appeal that the said Contempt Case is still pending 14. learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners further contends that it is not the case of the appellants, from the beginning, that there is delay and Even in the counter affidavit filed the appellants did not take the ground of delay and latches specifically. As such, he contends that now in the Writ Appeal, they not take such stand against the writ petitioners, who are agitating for their absorption for the last 25 years. 15. The latches on the part of the Writ Petitioners. in the Writ Petition, should considered the submissions made by the respective 16. We have counsels and carefully examined material available on record. There is no the fact that similarly situated persons have dispute with regard to approached this Court by filing W.P.No.7789 of 2012 and batch and by 20.12.2018, the composite High Court of Andhra common order dated directed the official respondents therein to absorb the petitioners therein in the vacant aided posts of Lecturers in the respective private Pradesh Managements with all consequential benefits said order, the official respondents filed Writ Appeal in dismissed vide Judgment dated 17. Against the W.A.No.227 of 2021 and the same was coordinate Division Bench of this Court. Against the said S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the dismissed vide S.L.P. No.13643 of 2020, date 08.04.2025 30.06.2021 by the Judgment, the State filed same was also 8 18. On a careful examination of the facts of the case, we are satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to the facts and circumstances of the cases, wherein common order was passed by the composite High Court on 20.12.2018, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In view of the same, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioners are entitled for the relief granted by the learned Single Judge while disposing the writ petition with respect to the ground raised by the appellants about delay and latches. 19. 20. It appears that till the filing of the counter affidavit in the Contempt Case which is pending till now before this Court, the writ petitioners are not aware of the rejection vide memo, dated 29.06.2013. In fact, as per the learned counsel for the petitioners, the rejection memo has not been communicated to the petitioners, thereafter also. The petitioners are under the impression that as they are agitating their grievance by filing the Contempt Case and it is pending, they need not challenge the rejection memo. But, thereafter as per the legal advice they are constrained to challenge the same by filing the Writ Petition. As such, it appears that there is no wilful or intentional delay on the part of the writ petitioners in challenging the rejection memo dated 29.06.2013. 21. 22. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court by placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 9 On careful and Others M'9 State of Orissa Bichitrananda Behera vs perusal of the facts But, in of the case, it appears that there is 12 years of delay m such abnormal and in the present case, there is no facts and circumstances that case. in the judgment not applicable to the intentional delay and as such the counsel for the appellants are n relied by the learned ^ circumstances of the present case. facts and considered view, the appellants of this Court with stated above, in our warranting the interference learned Single Judge while disposing of the Writ For the reasons not made out any case the order passed by the 23. have Petition. is dismissed. There shall be no order as petitions pending, if any, shall stand Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is . to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous closed. 24 // section officer Court Cases 420 ' (2023) 18 supreme //true copy// Court of Andhra Pradesh Education, High To, GP for Higher I Balaii Medamaili, Advocate lOPUd Two CCs to [OUTj 2. One CC to Sri 3 Two CD Copies TF (gsg) 1. HIGH COURT DATED:02/09/2025 JUDGMENT WA NO. 965 OF 2023 ! g 15 SEP 2025 C3\ m; ®9/; . Curreni Sscuon DISMISSING THE W.A., WITHOUT COSTS