(1.) THE petitioners were appointed as Lecturers of Satavahana College, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada in month of August, 1977 through the proceedings of a Selection Committee dated 28th August 1977. THE Selection Committee consisting of two representatives of the Nagarjuna University, one representative of the State Government, the Secretary and Correspondent of the college and the Principal of the College, selected the petitioners and accordingly they were appointed by the college. THEse petitioners have made applications for these posts in response to an advertisement published in a newspaper which requires a minimum of a low Second Class Post-Graduate Degree with not less than 50% of total marks. THEse demonstrably low and ridiculous academic standards the petitioners have very well satisfied. THE petitioners have therefore been appointed to the posts. After the petitioners had been appointed in the last week of August, 1977, they like all other teachers were being paid salaries upto November, 1978 and thereafter their salaries were withheld. THE reason for their not being paid salaries is contained in the proceedings dated 3rd April, 1979 of the Director of Higher Education and the proceedings dated 4th May, 1979 of the Secretary and Correspondent of Satavahana College. THE Director's proceedings dated 3rd April, 1979, declared these petitioners as ineligible for getting the salaries for two reasons. Ch. Varaprasad, Y. Kishore Kumar and K. Lakshmi Raju are all declared to be not qualified meaning thereby that they had secured less than 55% marks in their Post-Graduate Degrees and are also superfluous and G. Sambasivarao secured less than 55 % marks and therefore not qualified although not superfluous. THE communication dated 4th April, 1979 from the Secretary and Correspondent, Satavahana College merely mentioned the petitioners' failure to get the secure minimum of 55% marks in the Post-Graduate Degree examinations as the ground for withholding their salaries. THEse proceedings are now challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) THE main contention of the petitioners is that the advertisement inviting applications for appointment as lecturers mentioned only 50% of the marks and during the period when they were selected and appointed as lecturers of Satavahana College, the Nagarjuna University to which that college has been affiliated required only a minimum of 50% marks and that therefore, their selection and appointment were perfectly lawful when made. It appears that the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 1072, Education Department, dated 26th November, 1976, fixing 55% of marks in Post-Graduate Degree as a minimum requirement for appointment as a lecturer in these colleges and for payment of salaries under the Grant-in-Aid Code. But this G.O. is not self-operative in relation to recruitment to colleges affiliated to Nagarjuna University as different from Andhra University. Jn relation to the latter University it appears the relevant Act had been amended by the Andhra Pradesh Universities (Amendment) Act (XLII of 1976). It appeals by that Act (XLII of 1976), the power to prescribe conditions of service of teachers in the colleges affiliated to Andhra University is given over to the State Government. But that Act does not cover Nagarjuna University. THE Nagarjuna University Syndicate at its meeting held on 18th September, 1977, passed necessary regulations prescribing 55% of marks as minimum required for giving eligibility for appointment as a lecturer in its affiliated colleges. Till that date unfortunately the law requires just 50% to teach Post-Graduates. THEre is therefore no law requiring that a teacher to be appointed in an affiliated college of Nagarjuna University should possess atleasta minimumof 55% marks. Further it appears that the Government by its G. O. No. 719, Education, dated 3rd July, 1978 amended this good G.O.No. 1072, dated. 26th November, 1976 requiring 55% of marks making it applicable only to the teachers, to be appointed on and after G.O.No. 719, Education, dated 3rd July, 1978 not even from the date of 26th November, 1976. Expediency ruins education an this State. It follow from the above that the petitioners, who had been appointed in the last week of August, 1977 have been appointed in confirmity with the rules and regulations then obtaining and without violating any requirement of law. It follows therefore, that the proceedings of the Directory of Higher Education, dated 3rd April, 1979, and the proceedings of the Secretary and Correspondent of Satavahana College, Vijayawada, dated 4th May, 1979, to theextent they witheld salaries to the petitioners on the basis that they did not possess minimum of 55% of marks in their Post-Graduate Examinations is clearly unauthorised and is therefore bad. If this ground alone has been the ground for withholding the salaries from the teachers, I should have straightaway allowed this writ petition without anything more. But the proceedings of the Director shows that all the petitioners are superflous except Samba- sivarao, the first petitioner. Regarding those petitioners other than Sarobasivarao, there is an additional ground mentioned in the proceedings of the Director that they are superfluous. It is not clear from the order whether their recruitment is superflous or that they have subsequently become superfluous and above all whether they alone are superfluous. But in the counter it was explained that these petitioners have been superfluous even on the day of their recruitment. THE consideration gives a different completion to this case. Under the Grant-in-Aid Code, I cannot expect the Government to distribute its limited resources as educational grants to these who have been appointed far in excess of the needs of the college. Excess staff must be sent out. But who are excess must be first determined. THE question, how many teachers are superfluous and who they are must therefore be objectively determined. THEse petitioners have been selected not without the intervention and participation of the Government authorities. After they have been appointed, the petitioners have been paid salaries from the funds granted under Grant-in-Aid Code upto November, 1978. In those circumstances, teachers in the college recruited in excess of the needs of the college have to go. In that case the rule, last-come-first-go, must apply. It is wholly just and proper for such of those lecturers who have been recruited later to the petitioners should be retrenched first on the ground being superfluous before the lecturrers who are seniors to them are sought to be thrown out of the college. But I cannot decide whether the posts which the petitioners are holding have became superfluous and if so, from what date. Nor can I decide that even assuming that there is surplus number of teachers recruited which one of them should be axed. THEse are all matters the educational authorities should decide. I therefore, direct the Director of Higher Education Hyderabad, to ascertain the total needs of the teaching strength of Satavahana College, Vijayawada,in each Department separately and to retrench any of the lecturers found to have been recruited in excess of the college needs on the basis of last-come-first-go-rule. But till such an ascertainment is made after giving notice to the affected paities, these petitioners shall continue to be paid their salaries. THE Director of higher Education shall decide these questions within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order and the college administration shall supply him with all the records required for this purpose. As the teachers not been paid their salaries from December, till 1978 to-day, I direct the Government to release the grants within thirty days from the date of the receipt on this order in their favour upto the end of October, 1980 by which the Director of Higher Education shall complete the inquiry. THE writ petition, is allowed as above. No costs. Advocate's fee of Rs. 150. Writ petition allowed.