M. VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. D. INDEEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Appeals are filed challenging the common order, dtd. 5/3/2021, passed in W.P.No.10813 of 2018 and Batch by the learned single Judge.

(2.) The essential issue in these writ appeals and the writ petitions is about the action of the Universities in the State of A.P., grouping of the subjects for the purpose of providing reservations relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.43260 of 2016 of the Allahabad High Court and other case law. The writ petitioners contend that each department and each subject must be classified as a unit for the purpose of providing reservations. The universities started classifying the entire institution/University or college as a unit. Therefore, the batch of writ petitions were filed and the impugned orders came to be passed. Challenging the same the present set of appeals were filed by the Professors, Assistant Professors and others.

(3.) Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel commenced the arguments in this batch of Writ Appeals. According to the learned senior counsel in none of the writ petitions the issue of reservations being provided for Professors was challenged. He also submits that the professors were not heard before the impugned orders were passed. After seeking leave from the Court the Professors have challenged the impugned order. It is his contention that the writ petitioners are not applicants for the post of Professor yet an order was passed affecting the Professors also. It is also submitted that there is no reservation for the post of the Professor, which is a single post. As far as the issue of dividing the teaching posts into three groups as Arts, Science and Engineering Science it is submitted that learned single Judge relied upon the Writ Appeal of the Allahabad High Court overlooking the order passed by the Full Bench of the Combined High Court in the case of PVSV Prasad Rao v Andhra University,(2006) 2 ALD 1. It is pointed out that the order of the learned single Judge is, therefore, incorrect and the Full Bench of the Combined High Court is the complete answer to the issue. It is also pointed out in the alternative in the "8" available posts of the Professors; one was given for the woman and another two for physically disabled candidates. Therefore, it is submitted that horizontal reservation for women and the physically handicapped were also achieved. It is submitted that the group based reservations are very much valid and are inline with the Full Bench decision.