M.DHARMENDER RAO Vs. TELANGANA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 1st respondent-University in not entertaining the petitioner to assume duty as Botany Professor and advertising the said post vide Notification, dated 25.5.2012, for fresh appointment, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was appointed as Professor of Botany on contract basis in pursuance of a public notification. He joined the duty on 5.3.2008 after executing an agreement. Before his appointment, he was working as Lecturer in Government Aided Degree College, Warangal and he held lien over it for three years. After his probation was declared in the University, he wanted to go back to the parent college where he was holding lien and accordingly he submitted a representation to the University for relieving him from the post of Professor. Permission was granted to him and he was relieved from the duties by the 1st respondent-University vide orders in Lr. No. 82/REG/TU/NZB/2011, dated 28.2.2011. The petitioner thereupon joined the parent college and has been working there. The University thereupon issued the impugned Advertisement on 25.5.2012 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for making appointments to certain posts including the post of Botany Professor for which the vacancy had arisen in the place of the petitioner.

(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the said notification on the ground that he did not voluntarily give up the job, but he was made to do so, because he was wrongly informed that the said post was not pensionable. According to the petitioner, pension was made applicable to the teaching faculty working in the 1st respondents-University and orders were passed in that regard by the Government on 7.4.2011. However, the University without giving effect to the same, pretended as though the post was not pensionable. It is on account of this attitude, he gave up the job. Later, after pensionary benefits were extended to the said job, he realized that he was misled by the University and therefore he wanted to come back to the University.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the 1st respondent-University, I am of the view that the petitioner has no justification either in challenging the notification or seeking to come back to the University. The petitioner voluntarily accepted the post of Professor in the University and gave up the same on his own. Letter, dated 28.2.2011 addressed by the petitioner to the Registrar seeking to relieve him reads as under: