P USHA RANI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No. 15283 of 1990 was filed by the petitioner apprehending that her services will be terminated as Junior Lecturer in Economics in Sri Prasanna Gajanana Junior College for Girls, Hyderabad, which is under private management and which was admitted to grant-in-aid on the ground that she has not been allotted by the College Service Commission and sought for a writ of Mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise her services and to absorb her on regular basis with all consequential benefits as she was working in that capacity since 05-08-1985 on ad hoc basis. She also filed W.P.M.P.No. 19629 of 1990 to direct the respondents to continue her services as Junior Lecturer in the College on the same terms and conditions till she is absorbed on regular basis.

(2.) This Court while ordering notice before admission in the writ petition directed that this writ petition be posted along with Writ Petition Nos. 14313 of 1990 and 15320 of 1990 on 21-11-1990 by order dated 07-11-1990 and ordered notice in the W.P.M.Ps. Thereafter the writ petition underwent several adjournments and the same was admitted only on 26-06-1992 and no interim orders were passed by this Court directing her continuance in the post. The management seemed to have terminated her services on 19-11-1990 to accommodate Smt. Latha Rani and thereafter the petitioner seemed to have filed W.P.M.P.No...........seeking permission of the Court to implead the said Latharani as party respondent to the proceedings. But nearly for 4 years the application could not be posted before the Court on the ground that the same wasnottraced out in the Registry. In those circumstances the petitioner seemed tohave filed fresh Writ Petition No. 3888 of 1994 on the file of this Court seeking the same relief. The only change in this writ petition was that Smt. Latha Rani was impleaded as 5th respondent. This writ petition was admitted on 09-03-1994. Subsequently the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission was also impleaded as party respondent by filing W.P.M.P.No. 2282 of 1996 by virtue of the orders of this Court dated 11-04-1996. I have taken up both the cases for final hearing on 23-7-1998 and the matter underwent several adjournments to find out whether both the candidates can be accommodated in the College. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is sufficient work load to accommodate both the petitioner and the respondent and the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that there is no work load to accommodate two Lecturers. In those circumstances I appointed an Advocate-Commissioner by order dated 05-08-1998. As per the report filed by the Advocate-Commissioner it is seen that in the light of the directions given by the Board of Intermediate Education issued proceedings in R.C. No. 967/E2-1 /98-99, dated 14-07-1998 increasing the student strength in each Section to 110, the possibility of accommodating another Lecturer became bleak. In the above circumstances I have taken up further hearing of the matter and during the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioner started contending that the procedure followed by the 6th respondent i.e., the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission in selecting the candidates for appointment is vitiated on various grounds apart from the fact that the 6th respondentallotted 5th respondentto the College on the vergeof excluding the private College from the purview of the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission by amending Act 25 of 1990. He also brought to my notice that in the entire State no Lecturer allotted by the College Service Commission was absorbed in any of the private Colleges except this candidate even in this College. In those circumstances I directed the College Service Commission to file its counter by order dated 20-08-1998. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education was instructed by the 6th respondent to represent their case also before this Court. The learned G.P. has taken objection for raising these grounds without proper pleadings and in fact the petitioner except challenging the action of the College in terminating her services, she did not even question the allotment of the 5th respondent to the 3rd respondent College. In those circumstances I gave permission to the petitioner to file a better affidavit and also to seek modification of the prayer in the writ petition. Accordingly the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No. 32558 of 1998 seeking permission of the Court to file better affidavit raising all the grounds that are necessary to adjudicate the dispute and the same was ordered. Thereafter the 6th respondent filed its counter.

(3.) From the arguments advanced on both sides the following issues emerged for adjudication: