A. VENKATA RATNAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that all the petitioners joined as Junior Lecturers in the 4th respondent/College in unaided posts in different subject streams. They were paid meagre salary of Rs.500.00 per month, and the same was increased up to Rs.9,000.00. All the petitioners are working in the aided posts in their respective subject streams since 1/2/2005, 17/10/2002, 1/2/2005 and 1/2/2005 respectively. Further, the petitioners along with another filed W.P. No. 7713 of 2006, wherein this Court vide its order dtd. 31/7/2013 directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption into grant-in-aid vacancies. Despite representations made by the petitioners, the respondents have not chosen to take further steps in the matter. Out of the four petitioners, in so far as petitioner no. 4 is concerned, the management addressed a letter dtd. 20/8/2018 proposing his absorption into the grant-in-aid vacancies with effect from the date of availability. The said proposal was sent by the management on the request made by the RJD dtd. 7/8/2018. The other petitioners were also under the bona-fide impression that their cases also would be considered in due course. But, no steps were taken by the 4th respondent/College for absorbing them into the grant-in-aid post. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) The 2nd respondent filed his counter inter alia contending that the 4th respondent/College has appointed the petitioners against un-aided post purely on temporary basis without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority as per the G.O.Ms. No. 12 Education (CEI-2) Department, dtd. 10/1/1992. When there is a shortage of manpower occurred in private aided Junior Colleges, the management of the colleges are competent to engage them on temporary/adhoc basis to meet their day to day needs. As the expenditure incurred in the form of remuneration is being borne by the college management, necessary permission or approval for such appointment need not be obtained from the 2nd respondent or any other Government authorities. Hence, mere appointment by the College management on un-aided basis does not confer any right to the petitioners to claim their absorption into the grant-in-aid vacancies. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioners were appointed by the management without prior permission and without notifying the vacancies through advertisement and without constitution of the selection committee and without following the due procedure.