1 APHC010673432011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1347/2011 Between: 1. S.KHURSHIED BEGUM,, W/O P.DAWOOD KHAN, R/O MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M.G. GOPAL, I A S, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. ADHER SINHA, I A S, THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, A.P. HYDERABAD. 3. ADITYANATH DAS, SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DIST., A.P. 4. SUJATA SHARMA, IAS, COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PRASADAMPALEM, VIJAYAWADA, A.P. (R3 AND R4 SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER THE HON'BLE COURT ORDER DTD.13.07.2018 IN CC NO.1347 OF 2011). 5. N. VIJAYA BHASKAR CHOUDARY, CORRESPONDENT, B.T.COLLEGE, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 517 325. (R5 IMPLEADED AS PER THE HON'BLE COURT ORDER DTD.08/11/2018 IN IA NO.1/2018 IN CC NO.1347/2011) ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SRI RAM REDDY 2 Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. K V RAGHU VEER 2. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 3. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) 4. N SUBBA RAO The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri S. Sriram Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4, Sri V. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5 and Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 8. 2. The present Contempt Case has been filed regarding non-implementation of the direction of this Hon’ble Court dated 13.07.2010 in W.P.No.30692 of 1997. The operative portion of the Order of the learned Single of this Court in W.P.No.30692 of 1997 dated 13.07.2010 reads as under: “Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner is also similarly placed as that of G. Venkata Ramana Reddy in W.P.No.6080 of 1989 and his services have been regularized from the date when the post was admitted to grant-in-aid, petitioner is entitled to be extended the same benefit. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date when the post i.e. Junior Lecturer (Urdu) was admitted to grant-in-aid in 3rd respondent-college i.e. from 1.6.1984 and extend the monetary benefits, as was done in the case of G. Venkata Rama Reddy-petitioner in W.P.No.6080 of 1989. No order as to costs.” 3 3. The Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have filed Counter Affidavit on 02.02.2012. The Respondent No.4 has filed Counter Affidavit on 19.10.2018. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the Respondents have partly complied with the Order of this Court dated 13.07.2010 but the regularization and the consequential benefits were not given to the Petitioner for a period from April 1987 to March, 1992. It is admitted that all the benefits have been given for the balance period commencing from 01.06.1984 except the period indicated herein. 4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Petitioner, who was earlier working as a part-time Lecturer, had got elected as Councilor to the Madanapalli Municipality between April, 1987 to March, 1992 and it is for this purpose, the regularization and the benefits following the regularization were not given. Learned Counsel for the Respondents have drawn the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.13 Education (Rules) dated 08.01.1986 by which the Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1985 (the Rules, 1985) were issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Learned Counsel for the Respondents have also drawn the attention of this Court to proviso to Clause-(iii) of Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1985. In order to understand the effect of this provision, Rule-4 is entirely extracted hereunder: “4. Private employment or trade and investment - (1) No employee shall, except with the previous sanction of the management, negotiate for or undertake any other employment or work or engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business, save in the course of his official" duties. Provided that an employee may, without such sanction, undertake honorary work of a social or charitable nature or occasional work of literary, artistic or scientific character or any examinership or remuneration offered thereof by the Union Public Service Commission, Institute Secretarial Training and Management of Government of India, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, the State Board of Technical Education and Training or the Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh or by any University established in the State of Andhra Pradesh by law and the Board of Intermediate 4 Education, Andhra Pradesh subject to the following conditions:- (i) that he shall, within a period of one month of his undertaking any such work, report to the management, giving full details. (ii) that such work or examinership does not interfere with his official duties; (iii) that he shall not undertake or shall dis-continue such work, if so directed by the management. Provided further that if the undertaking of any such work involves holding of an elective office, he shall resign his appointment under the management and after his resignation is accepted, he may seek the holding of an elective office. Explanation I: Canvassing by an employee for candidate or candidates for an elective office referred to in the second proviso shall be deemed to be a breach of this sub rule. Explanation II: Canvassing by employee in support of the business or insurance agency or commission agency and the like owned or managed by his wife or any other member of his family shall be deemed to be a breach this sub rule. (2) Every employee shall report to the management if any member of his family is engaged in any trade business or manages an Insurance Agency or Commission Agency. (3). No employee shall without the previous sanction of the Government, except in the discharge of his duties, take part in the promotion, registration of management of any banking or other company which is required to be registered under the Companies Act, 195 (Central Act I of 1956) or any other law for the time being in force or any co-operative society or commercial purposes: Provided that an employee, may in accordance with the provisions of any general or special order of the management take part in the promotion, registration management of a co-operative society, substantially for the benefit of the employees, registered under any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force in the State or of a literary, Scientific for charitable society, registered under any law relating to the registration of societies. 5 (4) No employee shall accept any fee for any work done by him for any public body or any private person without the general or special sanction of the management. (5) (i) No employee shall speculate in any stock share or other investment. Explanation: Frequent purchase for sale shares, securities or other investments shall be deemed to be speculation within the meaning of this sub rule. (ii) NO employee shall make or permit any member of his family or any person acting on his behalf of to make any investment likely to emboss or influence him in the discharge of his official duties. (iii) The decision of the management shall be final in respect of any question arising under this sub rule.” 5. The extract of the above Rule would clearly indicate that a regular Employee/Lecturer has to tender resignation and contest for any elective Office only after such resignation has been accepted. In the present case, the Government has regularized the services of the Petitioner herein from 01.06.1984, regarding which, there is no dispute. Thereafter, while calculating the benefits with regard to payment of arrears, the Government has not paid the benefits between April, 1987 to March, 1992 because of the admitted fact that the Petitioner got elected and served as Corporator in Madanapalli Municipality as such. It is also an admitted fact that from April, 1992 onwards, the Petitioner was continued as a regular lecturer in the private college. 6. This Court has considered the Rules, 1985 and also the facts. Having considered the same, this Court is of the view that the decision taken by the Government not to pay the benefits of regularization between April, 1987 to March, 1992 is valid and justified in accordance with the Rules relating to the Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1985. 6 7. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no Contempt against the Respondents. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. 8. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has sought liberty to initiate appropriate Proceedings to contend that the Rules under G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 08.01.1986 would not apply to the case of the Petitioner. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to challenge the same, if so advised. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 31.07.2025 Vns