APHC010369782007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21643 of 2007 Bench Sr.No:-8 [3506] A.hanumantha Rao, Guntur District ...Petitioner Vs. The Govt Of A P Hyderabad 3 Others and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: D V SASIDHAR Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): C V BHASKAR REDDY, GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 13th November 2025 The court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “……to issue Writ or Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as lecturer in Commerce in fourth respondent college as illegal and arbitrary after declaring paragraph- 9(5) and 13 of G.O.Ms.No.328 Education (CE.III) Department dated 15.10.1997 in so far as fixing the cut- off date for counting the eligibility for regularization and annulment of guidelines issued under the aid G.O., after the period of six months as illegal arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution 2 of India and consequentially direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as lecturer in Commerce in the aided vacancy of the fourth respondent college with all consequential benefits like the seniority etc., and pass such other order or orders as the Honble Court may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) The petitioner was appointed as a part-time lecturer in the 4th respondent College by proceedings in Rc.No.C2/PTL-TS- Commerce-I/2000, dated 28.06.2000. He is stated to have been working in the said post continuously and the said appointment was in unaided post. The 4th respondent had five aided vacancies in the department of commerce, however, the petitioner was appointed on a part-time basis in unaided post. The petitioner claims to be duly qualified and eligible for appointment in aided vacancies on regular basis, but the notification was only to fill up unaided vacancies, that too on temporary basis. He was not given due opportunity for regular selection. (b) It is stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.302, Education, dated 23.08.1991, which formulated a scheme of regularization of part-time lecturers working in private colleges, the eligibility prescribed was to have 55% of marks in P.G. degree and to have put in two and a half years or more of service as part-time lecturer 3 and to be continuing in service as on the date of consideration. Further, by G.O.Ms.No.362, Education, dated 07.10.1994, the Government extended the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, that all part-time lecturers were recognized to be eligible for the purpose of regularization in grant in aided post. However, inasmuch as the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997, which prescribed cut-off dates for counting the qualifying service as 30.07.1991 and 25.11.1993 for computing the service of three academic years or five academic years, respectively, the case of the petitioner was not considered. However, in view of low marks in the subject and as Government had been considering absorption of the part-time lecturers who had been continuing in service in the unaided posts, having regard to the work load of the institution, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. (c) After the institution of the writ petition, the petitioner had come up with I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking direction to the respondents for consideration of his case for absorption in any other aided or degree colleges and if posts are not vacant by creating new posts in terms of G.O.Ms.No.65 dated 26.08.2025 and along with the said application, the petitioner has also 4 narrated subsequent developments on the subject of absorption. It is stated that considering the request of similarly situated persons who claimed absorption of their services in available vacancies of aided posts in some of the private management institutions, this Court, in W.P.No.7789 of 2012 and batch, by judgment and order dated 20.12.2018, issued directions to the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, A.P. to absorb the petitioners therein in the aided posts of lecturer in their respective private managements with all consequential benefits. (d) Thereafter, the State appears to have preferred W.A.No.263 of 2020, assailing the said judgment unsuccessfully. By order dated 31.07.2020, the appeal came to be dismissed and eventually S.L.P.No.1364 of 2020 was also dismissed by order dated 08.04.2025. This unsuccessful expedition of the State eventually resulted in the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 26.08.2025, by which the State issued categorical directions for implementation of various orders passed by this Court for absorption of candidates into aided posts. Therefore, the petitioner herein seeks similar benefit of absorption in terms of G.O., referred supra. 5 (f) Though this writ petition was instituted way back in the year 2007, surprisingly and shockingly no counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents opposing the same. 3. Heard Sri MVS. Nikhil Kashyal, learned counsel representing Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. B.V. Aparna Lakshmi, learned counsel for the 4th respondent- College and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the pleadings in the writ petition and also in I.A.No.1 of 2025, submitted that inasmuch as the petitioner had requisite eligibility and qualification for being appointed as lecturer in Commerce at relevant point of time and that he was only appointed as part-time lecturer in unaided posts, considering the length of service put in, he is required to be considered for absorption in line with the view expressed by this Court in various writ petitions as mentioned supra. He further contended that as the 4th respondent College has opted to surrender the aided posts to the State Government, in pursuance to the scheme evolved in the year 2021, the petitioner be either accommodated for 6 absorption in any of the aided vacancies in other private aided colleges or in the Government colleges or by creation of a new post in line with the scheme evolved in G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 26.08.2025. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education do not dispute the factum of the line of judgments rendered by this Court in relation to the absorption of the eligible lecturers in aided vacancies thereof. 6. As can be seen from the record the petitioner has been appointed as lecturer in Commerce on part-time and temporary basis in unaided vacancies. It is also not in dispute that the 4th respondent, at relevant point of time, had sanctioned five aided posts and there were vacancies available. Be that as it may, the petitioner continued to work in the said unaided vacancies from the date of his appointment till 02.05.2023. He discontinued from the services, in view of the 4th respondent college surrendering the aided posts to the Government. The petitioner was also duly qualified to hold the post of lecturer in commerce at relevant point of time, but due to the cut-off service prescribed by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 7 15.10.1997, his case for absorption could not be considered, which otherwise constrained him to institute the present writ petition. 7. The issue as to whether the candidate duly appointed in unaided vacancy is entitled for absorption into aided vacancies has been duly ventilated and fell for consideration before this Court. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in W.P.No.7789 of 2012 and batch, by judgment order dated 28.12.2018, it has been clearly held affirmatively in favour of the candidate claiming for such absorption. The said view has been later followed in various other judgments and even the State challenged the said order unsuccessfully before the Division bench as well as before the Hon’ble Apex Court. In that view of the matter, considering the final resultant, G.O.Ms.No.65 dated 26.08.2025 was issued by the 1st respondent, by which directions have been issued for implementation of various court orders insofar as absorption is concerned. Hence, this Court finds that even the petitioner’s request to consider similar benefit to be valid and reasonable. 8 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of by directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption in line with the G.O.Ms.No.65 dated 26.08.2025 and pass appropriate speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 13.11.2025 ANS 9 268 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 21643/2007 Date: 13.11.2025 ANS