APHC010991732018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 47806/2018 Between: DR. M. NAGABHUSHAN REDDY, S/O M. RAM REDDY, 42 YEARS, ASST. PROFESSOR ON CONTRACT (MINIMUM TIME SCALE OF PAY) IN ZOOLOGY RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. RAYALASEEMA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, KURNOOL KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P.V. KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA VIJAYA SANTHI 2. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings No. RUK/Registrar/T.Estt./Legal/2018/01, dt. 05.03.2018 issued by the 1St Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide and unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and subversive of rule of law and set aside the same and also declare the action of the 1st Respondent University not regularizing the services of the Petitioner as Assistant Professor in Zoology in 2 pursuance of the Resolution No. 7 of the Resolutions passed by the Executive Council of Rayalaseema University dated 03.02.2017 is equally arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide, unconstitutional under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondent to forthwith regularize the services of the Petitioner as Assistant Professor in Zoology in pursuance of the Resolution No.7 of the Resolutions passed by the Executive Council of Rayalaseema University on 03.02.2017 with effect from the date of availability of regular sanctioned vacancy with all consequential benefits including the seniority, arrears of pay etc.” 2. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.Nimmagadda Vijaya Santhi, learned Standing Counsel for the University. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Teaching Assistant in Zoology in Respondent No.1- University in the year 2007 and later his designation was changed as Assistant Professor in the year 2014 and ever since he has been working as such. Learned counsel would further submit that in view of the requisite qualifications and 10 years of service as an Assistant Professor, instead of absorbing the Petitioner against the existing regular vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Professor, Respondent No.1 – University is trying to fill up regular posts of Assistant Professors by way of direct recruitment. Learned counsel would further submit that, on the writ petition filed by the Petitioner before this Court and in view of the interim order passed therein, the Petitioner was given minimum time scale. It is submitted that, in view of the notification issued by the University to fill up the posts of Assistant Professors, the University requested the Public Service Commission to conduct screening test to complete the process. Against the said notification, the Petitioner filed another writ petition to direct the University to absorb the services of the 3 Petitioner, wherein, this Court passed an interim order by giving liberty to the Petitioner to give a representation to the University to that effect and to dispose of the said representation within six weeks therefrom. When the representation of the Petitioner was not considered by Respondent No.1 – University, he filed a Contempt Case and the same is pending. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Executive Council of Respondent No.1- University passed a resolution on 03.02.2017 and as per the said resolution the Petitioner is entitled for accommodation as an Assistant Professor in the existing vacancy in the University. Though the Petitioner qualified in the screening test, the request of the Petitioner for regularization, was rejected by the University. Hence, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and others1, Rajkaran Singh and others vs. Union of India and others2 and Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation3. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 – University would submit that the Resolution dated 03.02.2017 passed by the University is applicable only for non-teaching staff, but not to the teaching staff i.e., Assistant Professors. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the recruitment of regular teaching posts in the Universities will be done through 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2138 3 (1999) 1 SCC 361 4 various committees by following UGS norms. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the University cannot regularize the services of the Petitioner, who is working in contract basis. 5. The challenge in the present writ petition is the Proceedings No.RUK/Registrar/T.Estt./Legal/2018/01, dated 05.03.2018 issued by Respondent No.1- University. For ready reference, the said proceedings are extracted hereunder: “No. RUK/Registrar/T.Estt./Legal/2018/01 Date: 05-03-2018 To Dr. M. Nagabhushan Reddy Asst. Professor (on Contract) Dept. of Zoology Rayalaseema University College Kurnool. Dear Dr. M. Nagabhushan Reddy, This is with reference to your letter dated 16.02.2018. Your request received and examined for regularisation / absorption on regular basis cannot be considered for the following reasons: 1. The Government of A. P. Sanctioned positions in 2011 as per GO Ms. No. 24 of Finance(SMPC-I)Dept., dated 28.02.2011 and vide GO Ms. No. 33 of 2017 issued by Higher Education Dept. dated 30.06.2017. 2. You were engaged on purely on temporary basis for teaching work. 3. You were not placed in the present position through any regular selection committee as per UGC regulations. 4. You are not performing the duties of a regular teaching faculty as per UGC norms. 5. Your performance was not evaluated and you also did not face any regular selection process as per UGC norms. 6. Any regular vacancy should be filled through a notification, regular selection committee including Chancellor's nominee, 5 recommendations of the selection committee, based on domain knowledge and oral interview performance. 7. Finally, such selections should be approved by the members of University Executive Council. 8. The regular positions along with rosters were notified in the notification and you are free to apply for the same. Because, you have not fulfilled any of the above, your request has not considered by the University.” 6. Admittedly, the Petitioner has been working as an Assistant Professor in Zoology in Respondent No.1 – University, on contract basis since 2007. The Petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking regularization of his services based on the Resolution No.7 passed by the Executive Council of Rayalaseema University on 03.02.2017. For ready reference, the said resolution is extracted hereunder: “Resolved to approve for consideration of employees working on Time-Scale basis and accommodate them into the permanent posts whenever, a vacancy arise, based on their educational qualification and subject to pass in the screening test conducted by the University.” 7. As seen from the above, as rightly put by the learned Standing Council, the said resolution is for non-teaching staff, but not for the teaching staff and it is not applicable to the post of Assistant Professor. Admittedly, the University had not conducted any screening test for the recruitment of teaching faculty. The recruitment of regular teaching posts in the Universities will be done through various Committees consisting of Subject Experts, UGC representatives, Governor’s nominee by following the UGC norms. Further, Respondent No.1-University has no power to absorb Professors, Assistant 6 Professors and Associate Professors, who are working on contract basis into regular vacancies and the posts of Assistant Professors have to be recruited through the notification and as per the UGC guidelines. 8. Admittedly, in the year 2014 notification was issued for recruitment of Assistant Professors and the same was not attained finality. Again in the year 2017 notifications were issued for filling up the posts of Professors, Assistant Professors and Associate Professors by all the Universities in the State. A batch of Writ Petition Nos.23770 of 2017 were filed before this Court questioning the said notifications. Some of the writ petitions were filed for regularization of the services of the Petitioners therein. The said writ petitions were disposed of by a Common Order dated 05.03.2021 by setting aside the notification issued by the Universities and also rejecting the claim of the regularization of their services by holding that the Petitioners in W.P.Nos.1942, 2975, 3474, 3489 and 36716 of 2019 are not entitled to be regularized in view of their long service as contractual employees. The learned Judge has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi4, wherein, it was held that the persons, who have been serving for a long time, would not be automatically entitled to regularization as such regularization militates against the rights of so many other persons who would be deprived of their opportunity to obtain employment with the State. Questioning the above Common Order dated 05.03.2021, Writ Appeal Nos.214 of 2021 and batch have also been filed 4 (2006) 4 SCC 1 7 before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and the same were dismissed vide Common Judgment dated 11.07.2023 confirming the Common Order passed by the learned Single Judge. Series of writ petitions have been filed by the Petitioner at different stages of the litigation. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Petitioner cannot claim absorption of services basing on the Resolution No.7 dated 03.02.2017 passed by Respondent No.1 – University, which is meant for non-teaching staff only. The recruitment of Assistant Professors has to be done as per the guidelines of UGC and the Assistant Professors who are working on contract basis cannot be taken into regular service by Respondent No.1 – University. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, are not helpful to the case of the Petitioner since the facts and circumstances in those cases and the present case are different. The contentions raised by the Petitioner in this writ petition are not tenable. The impugned proceedings do not brook any interference of this Court. The petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:25.06.2025 Dinesh 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 47806/2018 Dt.25.06.2025 Dinesh