ARATI JADHAV Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDRHA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in cancelling one post reserved for BC -B (W) category out of total eight posts to be appointed as Assistant Professors in Commerce in the second respondent -University, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to adhere to the recommendations of the Selection Committee in respect of Direct Recruitment of Teachers UGC RSP 2006, pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2009, dated 20.02.2009, Re -notification dated 17.06.2010, Advertisement No.6/2010, dated 9.9.2010 and Partial Notification dated 6.2.2012.

(2.) THE petitioner belongs to BC -B community. She has been working as an Assistant Professor of Commerce in Post Graduate College, Secunderabad, on contract basis, since two years. Earlier, she worked for six years in various affiliated colleges of the 2nd respondent -University in Commerce Department. Vide Advertisement Nos.4/2010, 5/2010 and 6/2010, dated 9.9.2010, the second respondent -University issued notification on 6.2.2012 to fill up the backlog vacancies of Assistant Professor in Commerce Department. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner applied for the said post. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued call letter for the interview, for which, the petitioner attended and the expert committee had made its recommendations for all the eight posts. The results were not published for quite some time. Thereafter, the results for seven posts were released and the appointment orders were issued to the candidates. The result for the post reserved for BC -B (W) category was not published. Then, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities on various occasions to find out the result in respect of the post reserved for BC -B (W), but in vain. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3306 of 2014 before this Court. Vide order dated 7.2.2014, this Court directed respondents 2 to 4 to declare the result and communicate the decision of the Executive Council to the petitioner. In compliance of the said direction, the respondent authorities vide letter dated 17.02.2014 informed the petitioner that the Executive Council at its meeting held on 18.01.2014 had not approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee for BC -B (W) post and had proposed to re -notify the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce, BC -B (W) category under General Recruitment (Group -I). After receipt of the said letter, the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking reasons as to why the Executive Council had cancelled the recruitment process for the one post only. The 2nd respondent vide letter dated 1.3.2014 communicated to the petitioner that the application of the petitioner was transferred to the Joint Registrar (PIO), Administration Branch, Osmania University, who in turn, vide letter dated 15.03.2014, had provided a list of seven candidates appointed as Assistant Professors in Commerce and also copies of the recommendations of the Selection Committee and Assessment Sheets, however, no document was provided setting out the decision of the Executive Council cancelling the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce under BC -B (W) category. As per the recommendation of the Selection Committee, eight candidates were selected for the posts of Assistant Professor in Commerce and the name of the petitioner stood at serial No.5 in the list of selected candidates. While so, since no information was available to the petitioner in respect of the said cancellation of the post reserved for BC -B (W) category, the petitioner approached number of officials of the 2nd respondent University and she was informed that the Executive Council had not provided any apparent reason for the cancellation of the post reserved for BC -B (W) category and there is a proposal to re -notify the said post. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the action of the respondents for not appointing her to the post of Assistant Professor though her name was recommended by the Selection Committee.

(3.) COUNTER -affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 contending that on the recommendations of the Selection Committee and with the approval of the Executive Council, at its meeting held on 3.9.2013, orders were issued to seven candidates as Assistant Professors in the Department of Commerce, Osmania University. Further, the Executive Council at its meeting held on 18.01.2014 had not approved the selection of the candidate under BC -B (W) category and directed the University to re -notify the said vacancy. It is further sated that the Executive Council after detailed discussions considered the eligibility or otherwise of the candidates and accordingly decided to re -notify the post relating to BC -B (W) as it found no suitable candidate under the said category. It is submitted that in exercise of statutory powers vested under Section 19 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, the Executive Council did not accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee and that there is no procedure to record detailed discussions held at the meeting, which are confidential in nature. According to the Executive Councils decision, against eight posts, seven posts were filled up and the remaining one post is to be re -notified.