OSMANIA COLLEGE KURNOOL Vs. D V SUBBA SASTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first and the principal point that was debated before us in writ Appeal is about the correctness of Harijander Singh v. Rakatiya Medical College. Sri Shiv Shanker appearing for the appellant has mounted a severe criticism on the correctness of the view taken by the Full Bench in that case and said that in any event it has ceased to be good law in view of what the Supreme Court decided in later cases. Though other questions did arise, this point occupied substantial portion of the arguments.

(2.) This is how the matter arose. The appellant is the Osmania College, Kurnool, represented by its Correspondent. It is affiliated to Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, which is the 4th respondent. There is no dispute that it is an institution of a minority community which gets the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution. It is recognised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and has been receiving full teaching grant. Respondents 1 and 2 are lecturers in the Telugu department of the college. The first had been in service for nine years and the second for eight years before the filing of the writ petition. Saying that there would be fall in the work load in the following academic year, the Managing Committee of the appellant college passed an order on 16th of March, 1968 retrenching respondents 1 and 2 from service. This retrenchment was questioned by the respondents 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 2801 of 1968 in this Court. Simultaneously they invoked the provisions of clause 10 of the contract of service which they entered into with the college management and which provided for an appeal to the Syndicate. As a condition of affiliation, the University laid down certain conditions of service for teachers serving in the affiliated colleges. While admitting the writ petition this Court granted an interim direction not to retrench respondents 1 and 2. It was also later directed that the salaries of respondents 1 and 2 should be paid within 15 days. Gopala Rao Ekbote, J. (as he then was), granted a direction, while finally disposing of the writ petition on 13th April, 1970 that the respondents 1 and 2 should be continued in service until the Syndicate disposed of the appeals preferred by them. There was no appeal against that decision as a consequence of which Justice Ekbote's decision became final. The Syndicate of the University thereafter allowed the appeals of the respondents 1 and 2 and directed the appellant to continue them in service.

(3.) The college committee did not strp here. Saying that the evening session of the college was going to be closed, it passed a resolution on 28th April, 1970 to the effect that the services of the respondents 1 and 2 would not be required and would therefore be terminated. This was challenged by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 3499 of 1970 who also preferred appeals to the Syndicate of the University. Pending the writ petition they were continued in service by an order rf this Court. This was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the respondents 1 and 2 were appointed to the evening college and as it was going to be closed they could not seek continuance in service. Madhava Reddy, J., by his decision dated 25th September, 1970 finally disposed of the writ petition holding that the appointment of respondents 1 and 2 was not for the evening sessicn and even if the evening college or session was closed down, the services of respondents 1 and 2 could not be terminated in the circumstances of the case. As was done on the previous occasion, this time also a directicn was given that the respondents 1 and 2 should be continued in service until the Syndicate disposed of the appeals which were preferred before it by the respondents 1 and 2. This time an appeal was preferred in W.A. No. 269 of 1971 by the appellant against the decision of Madhava Reddy, J., it was, however, dismissed by a Division Bench on 25th October, 1971. In the meanwhil,, the Syndicate of the University allowed the appeals of the respondents 1 and 2 and directed the college committee to continue them in service. The Director of Public Instruction, Andhra Pradesh, who is the 3rd respondent before us, intimated the appellant college that the Government was prepared to bear the expenditure incurred by the college for continuing the respondents 1 and 2 in service.