APHC010331922004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 18433 of 2004 Bench Sr.No:-6 [3506] Dr. O.s. Ramachandraiah, Ananthapur ...Petitioner Vs. The Registrar Jntu Kukatpalli Hyderabad and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: J SUDHEER Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): D KRISHNA SC FOR JNTU ANANTHAPURAMU, PENJURI VENUGOPAL (SC FOR JNTUA) CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 5th March 2026 The Court made the following Order: 1. (a) Petitioner possessed a Master's Degree in Chemistry (M.Sc.) and later acquired a Ph.D. in the year 2003. He was initially appointed as Junior Research Assistant in Oil Technological Research Institute (for brevity, “OTRI”), which was under the control of Department of Industries, Government of 2 Andhra Pradesh. Later he got promoted as Senior Scientific Assistant, OTRI. (b) Eventually, OTRI came to be absorbed into Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (for brevity “JNTU”) in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.199, Industries, Commerce and Power (IF.CELL) Department, dated 18.4.1985. Under the said transfer scheme, all the assets got transferred; besides, even the existing employees were also given option to either choose the services of JNTU or, in default, they would be absorbed into the Department of Industries, Government of Andhra Pradesh. (c) Petitioner stated to have exercised the option of serving in JNTU. By proceedings dated 06.04.1991, general orders were issued whereby all those employees who opted to work with JNTU were accordingly recognized to work with JNTU with effect from 01.04.1985. By proceedings dated 04.10.1991, petitioner was specifically assigned to JNTU. (d) Petitioner claimed that he has been discharging function as Senior Scientific Assistant, which incidentally requires assisting the teaching faculty and conducting special classes to the students. That being so, based on proceedings dated 3 23.09.1998, stated to have been issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the Registrar of JNTU, by referring to statute XIV(25)(2), the services of those who have been absorbed from OTRI were sought to be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years. Eventually, as petitioner was sought to be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years, he preferred a W.P.No.10053 of 2004. As this Court has refused to grant interim order, he stated to have preferred W.A.No.1138 of 2004. (e) While hearing the said writ appeal, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Executive Council passed a resolution dated 28.12.1990 proposing to treat the employees of OTRI as distinct category and fixed the age of superannuation at 58 years on par with the other non-teaching staff of university, and further that an amendment to statute has been given effect to, both writ petition as well as writ appeal came to be dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 30.08.2004 with liberty to seek appropriate remedies insofar as the amendment made to the statute. Further, petitioner also claimed that though he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Director, OTRI, the respondent University has denied him further 4 promotion, despite acquired the eligibility by holding Ph.D. in chemistry. (f) In that view of the matter, present writ petition came to be filed questioning the action of respondent University in denying petitioner rightful promotion to the post of Director, OTRI, and further purporting to retire the petitioner from service on attaining the age of 58 years, basing on the amended statute XIV(25) of University, to be illegal and arbitrary and ultra vires the parent Act i.e., JNTU Act, 1972. The said writ petition came to be admitted. However, no interim order was passed at the relevant point of time. 2. (a) Respondent university filed counter affidavit, inter alia, taking stand that the employees who have been absorbed from OTRI have been considered as a class by themselves. Accordingly, the Executive Council passed a resolution dated 20.12.1990, by which the age of superannuation was determined as 58 years. The petitioner and others from OTRI came to be absorbed only by proceedings issued in the year 1991, which is later to the aforesaid Executive Council resolution. Further, statute XIV clearly defines the academic service to include only Professors, Associate Professors/Reader, Assistant 5 professions/Lecturers, university librarians, who are engaged in academic activities, and Research Officers and Scientific Assistants have been consciously left out of the said definition. The said categories of persons have been classified under subordinate technical services. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to be part of academic services for the purpose of claiming superannuation on par with the persons falling under academic services. (b) Insofar as the claim of petitioner for promotion, it is stated that the post of Director, OTRI, is required to be filled up either by direct recruitment or promotion from different channels. Petitioner merely falls within one of the promotion channels, subject to possessing required eligibility and qualification, and that petitioner does not possess Ph.D. (chemical) with requisite experience for being considered for the said post. 3. Heard Ms. Sheik Neha Hassan, learned counsel representing Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri D. Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University. 6 4. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that since petitioner has been absorbed into the services of University by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.198, dated 18.04.1995, by which the transfer of OTRI got affected, categorically envisaged that the persons who opted the services of JNTU shall be extended the service benefits as per JNTU Rules, considering that petitioner has been also involved in assisting the faculty besides conducting special classes, for all purposes he should be treated as a teaching faculty and thereby the age of superannuation be determined on par with the University teaching staff. (b) It is contended that the amendment made to statute XIV(25) though was in tune with the Executive Council resolution dated 20.12.1990, since the same has been approved by the Chancellor on 23.09.1998, the amendment would have only prospective effect after such approval. As petitioner has been absorbed much prior to that of the amendment, it will have no effect. Therefore, extending the age of superannuation at 58 years is clearly contrary to the aforesaid statute. (c) Lastly, it is contended that petitioner since has acquired the qualification of Ph.D. (Chemistry) in the year 2003, and that 7 the post of Director was vacant by then, the respondents ought to have considered his case for promotion. Rather, they denied promotion and made the petitioner to superannuate early on 30.06.2004 only to defeat the petitioner's right for consideration of promotion. Therefore, on the aforesaid grounds, petitioner would urge this Court to allow the writ petition. 5. (a) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent University, while drawing attention of this Court to the contents of the counter affidavit, contended that as the statute XIV(25)(2) specifically treats the category of OTRI employees under special category in terms of Executive Council resolution dated 20.12.1990, petitioner cannot claim any better right than to accept the age of superannuation at 58 years. Even by going with the definition of academic services, the nature of duties carried by petitioner would not qualify or fall within the ambit of teaching faculty. Therefore, all the employees who have been absorbed from OTRI have been classified under subordinate technical services. Accordingly, he tried to justify the act of University in superannuating the employees who have been absorbed from OTRI on attaining age of 58 years. 8 (b) He further contended that petitioner is neither eligible to be considered for promotion nor possess the required qualification as on the date of consideration. Petitioner acquired the qualification of Ph.D. (Chemistry) only in the year 2003, however did not meet the requirement of having minimum experience. Further, as petitioner has not been considered to be teaching faculty, he rendered ineligible for being considered to the post of Director, OTRI. 6. Perused the record and considered the respective submissions made by both the learned counsel. 7. Petitioner was initially appointed with OTRI as Junior Research Assistant and later got promoted to Senior Scientific Assistant. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.199, dated 18.04.1995, all the employees who were working with OTRI have been given option to either seek for absorption into the services of JNTU or else with the Department of Industries, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The said G.O. also categorically states that the services of those who seek absorption shall be in terms of JNTU Rules. The cut-off date fixed for absorption was 01.04.1985. The process of absorption took some time and eventually, by proceedings dated 06.04.1991, all those employees who have 9 opted for the services of the University came to be issued orders of absorption. 8. By proceedings dated 04.10.1991, specific order was issued absorbing the petitioner into the services of University, however with effect from 01.04.1985. In sub para-3 of the said proceedings, it was specifically stated that petitioner's services are absorbed with the University and that he would be governed by the service conditions in terms of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Act, 1972 (for brevity “ JNTU Act, 1972”) as altered, supplemented or amended from time to time. 9. Even before issuance of the aforesaid specific orders, there was an Executive Council resolution passed on 20.12.1990, by which all the employees who came to be absorbed from OTRI were made as distinct category and their age of superannuation came to be determined as 58 years. The aforesaid resolution came to be approved by the Chancellor on 23.09.1998 in terms of Section 24(5) of JNTU Act, 1972. The effect of such approval was that the amendment proposed for statutes in terms of G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 19.12.1994, by which XIV(25)(2) came to be substituted, determined the pension and gratuity payable to the employees of the University, besides age of superannuation. 10 10. The said amendment has made a clear distinction between employees belonging to academic services, who were made to retire on attaining the age of 58 years and employees belonging to administrative services, ministerial services, subordinate services (technical and non-technical) and OTRI service as a distinct category, who are to retire on attaining age of 58 years. The employees of University, except for academic services, were stated to be governed by the Rules applicable to employees of Government of Andhra Pradesh in respect of pension, retirement- cum-death, gratuity, general provident fund, etc. 11. As can be seen from the previous unamended statute 25 with that of substituted provision, there is a significant change on two aspects one with respect to extending the age of superannuation for all employees of University, other than academic services, to 58 years from 55 years, and secondly, insertion of new category of employees, i.e., OTRI employees, to be on par with the administrative and ministerial employees. 12. As seen from the record, it appears that University has taken conscious decision, having regard to the nature of duties discharged by OTRI, to include them in the category of non-academic service and thereby made them as a separate and 11 distinct class for the purpose of extending the tenure of service as well as the pension and gratuity entitlements. 13. In this background, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner requires to be examined. The challenge of the amendment is on the ground that the university has not taken into confidence the petitioner and other co-employees who have been absorbed from OTRI before deciding to bring in amendment and they ought not to have been carved out a separate and distinct category, ignoring that they were also discharging the functions and duties similar to that of academic services as defined under the statute. It is also contended that even if the amendment to the statute were to apply, the same would have a prospective application but cannot extend it to the petitioner and others who have already been working with the University. 14. The post held by petitioner while working in OTRI was predominantly in the area of research and there is no scope for teaching, as the nature of activity undertaken by OTRI does not envisage holding any academic exercises in imparting education. 12 15. Be that as it may, in pursuance to the transfer scheme issued under G.O.Ms.No.199, dated 18.04.1985, petitioner opted services of University. Proceedings dated 06.04.1991, by which petitioner and other employees of OTRI came to be absorbed with JNTU, merely indicate and refer to the post they were holding as on the date of exercising the option. It clearly indicates that petitioner was holding the post of Senior Scientific Assistant. Further, proceedings dated 04.10.1991, by which specific orders were issued in favor of the petitioner, also indicates that he was absorbed into services of JNTU and that he would be governed by service conditions of the University in terms of JNTU Act, 1972, as altered, supplemented or amended from time to time. Conspicuously, neither of these two proceedings referred to as to whether the petitioner’s absorption was recognized to be in the post of academic services. 16. The Executive Council resolution dated 20.12.1990 has treated OTRI employees as distinct category and they have been made to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years on par with the employees of non-academic services. The same later came to be made part of the statute by way of amendment, which is in challenge. The amendment carried out to the statute is in the 13 nature of subordinate legislation. The parent statute, i.e., JNTU Act, envisages the manner in which the amendments have to be brought in. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amendment so made was without any prior intimation to the petitioner and other employees of OTRI, who were otherwise affected by such amendment. When there is no such requirement of having prior consultation with the persons or class of persons who otherwise would be affected in any manner, the amendment so brought in cannot be said to be ultra vires provisions of the parent Act. Only if in case it shows that the amendment does not pass muster of being in conformity with the provisions of the parent Act, or the delegate has exceeded the power so conferred, it cannot be said to be ultra vires of the provisions of the Act. 17. The principles underlying the concept of delegated legislation and the scope of challenge have been summarized by Hon’ble Apex Court in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India and Others1 in following terms: “28. Although delegated legislation enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, it does not enjoy the same immunity as the parent legislation. It is now well established that delegated legislation can be challenged on the following grounds: 1 (2025) 1 SCC 641 14 (i) lack of legislative competence to make delegated legislation: (ii) violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution; (ii) violation of any provision of the constitution; (iv) failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act; Exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act; (v) repugnance to any other enactment; and (vi) manifest arbitrariness.” 18. Having regard to the nature of duties discharged by the class of persons who have been absorbed from OTRI, categorizing them in distinct and specific class cannot be found fault with. At any rate, the Executive Council is the highest body who is empowered to take appropriate decisions in the stream of academics, and also administrative actions. Therefore, the decision so made, which ultimately translated into amendment to the statute and also later being approved by the Chancellor, in no manner can be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. Though the petitioner tried to contend that the petitioner indeed was assisting the professors and also discharging the duties similar to that of persons under the category of academic services, this Court neither has any material before it to accept the said version nor is competent to venture into such arena and decide as to what exactly was the nature of functions assigned and discharged 15 by OTRI category employees to claim such services to be predominantly academic services. 19. Further contention that the amendment to the statute should be applied only prospectively but not retrospectively to the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court has no substance. The order, by which the petitioner came to be absorbed in the services of JNTU, clearly envisages that his services shall be governed by the provisions of the JNTU Act and statutes existing, as may be modified from time to time. Therefore, when the very order of absorption itself candidly had set out that he would be governed by the service conditions not only as were in force on that day, but also by modified or amended conditions in future, the question of the petitioner claiming that he would not be governed by such amendment does not arise. 20. Coming to the aspect of promotion, it is well settled that persons cannot claim promotion as a matter of right, but one can only claim right for consideration. The post of Director, OTRI, is to be filled up either by direct recruitment or on promotion. It is for the employer to decide as to when and in what manner the post has to be filled. Merely because the petitioner acquired the qualification and eligibility, the same ipso facto would not entitle 16 him for promotion. The petitioner being a Senior Scientific Assistant and stated to be having the necessary qualification and experience, will be one amongst other categories of persons eligible to be considered for promotion as and when the exercise of filling up of the post arises. The post can also be filled up by way of direct recruitment. 21. In that background, the claim of the petitioner, who falls in one of the channels for consideration, would definitely have no right to promotion and the claim so made is clearly unfounded. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 05.03.2026 ANS 17 108 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 18433 of 2004 Date: 05.03.2026 ANS/KBN