VASAVI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING Vs. A SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the respondent in W.P.7133/85. He is also the respondent in W.P.4172/87. W.P.7133/85 was allowed by judgment dt.7.3.86. Appellant assails that judgment Writ Petition No. 4172/87 was filed by the 1st respondent in the Appeal complaining that in spite of the above judgment in his favour, his service was terminated by an order dt. 6.3.1987. These two proceedings are closely inter-related. Therefore, we dispose them of by this common judgment. We will refer to the parties in the order in which they appeared in W.P.7133/85.

(2.) The facts are the following: The 3rd respondent - Management appointed the petitioner as an Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering in the Vasavi College of Engineering, by order dt. 28.12.83. That appointment was temporary. He was paid a salary of Rs. 1840/- which was very nearly the maximum in the scale of Rs. 1200-50-1300-60-1900. The order of appointment stated that he should appear before a Selection Committee for regular appointment. On 12.2.84 the 3rd respondent issued a notification inviting applications for appointment as Professor in the department of civil Engineering. Petitioner applied on 21-2-84 and appeared before a duly constituted selection committee on 28-7-84. But he was found unfit for appointment as professor. There was a condition attached in the advertisement that if a candidate was found not suitable to the post of professor, he might be considered for appointment in the lower post The Selection Committee did not consider him for regular appointment as Assistant Professor, but continued him in employment. By order dt. 10.5.1985, 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that he was relieved with immediate effect from his temporary appointment, evidently as a measure of retrenchment. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7133/85 and obtained an order of stay of his relief. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner was only a temporary appointee, that he was not found fit for regular appointment as a Professor and therefore termination of his service was proper. 3rd respondent also submitted that termination of service of a person who was found unfit for appointment could not be retrenchment and that any such temporary appointee could not insist upon continuance in service.

(3.) Amareswari, J. allowed the Writ Petition by judgment dt. 7.3.1986 holding that the very order dt. 10.5.85 indicated that the order was an order of retrenchment. The learned judge found the fact that the petitioner was appointed temporarily as an Assistant Professor or that he was not found fit to be appointed as a Professor was no justification for terminating his service. The Court held further that the termination of his service could have been effected only with the prior approval of the competent authority or the next higher authority as the case may be, as provided under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act. The learned Judge also observed that there was substance in the contention of the petitioner that even on initial appointment, he was granted pay of Rs.1840/-, almost equal to the maximum, indicated that he was being rewarded for his rich experience as a lecturer for over a period of sixteen years. Yet another observation of the learned judge was that in view of the fact that he was already holding the post of an Assistant Professor, though on a temporary basis, the respondent was duty bound to consider him at least for that post, if he was not found suitable for the post of Professor for which he had applied. It was therefore held that the termination of service of the petitioner was arbitrary.