S POLAYYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners seek a direction to the first respondent to redesignate them as lecturers in the 3rd respondent college. THEy have been appointed as part-time Lecturers in 3rd respondent College in 1987,1986 and 1986 respectively. In the year 1996 they have been absorbed on regular basis but till today they havebeen continuing only as Junior Lecturers. THE 3rd respondent college is a composite College where apart from Degree course, Intermediate course is also there. It is the grievance of the petitioners inter alia in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that there is no post of Junior Lecturer as such in the composite college and there is only post of lecturer and further that the persons appointed subsequent to them and juniors have been appointed as lecturers on regular basis and therefore their request be considered. In fact, a recommendation has been made by the Correspondent/3rd respondent College to the first respondent for issuing suitable orders for absorbing the petitioners as lecturers without prejudice to their seniority. THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the said representation made by the Correspondent/3rd respondent College has not been considered so far. THE learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon G.O.Ms. No.1072 dated 26-11-1976. Clause (i) of the said G.O. is apposite to be considered here. It reads as follows: (i) Different categories in the affiliated colleges: THE different categories now existing among the teachers in the Affiliated Degree and Post-Graduate Colleges like Readers Heads of Departments/Senior Lecturers, Lecturers (Senior scale) Lecturers (Junior scale)/Assistant Lecturers and Junior Lecturers working in Degree Colleges are merged into one, and there shall be only one category i.e., "Lecturer" in the Revised Pay Scale of Rs.700-1600. THE applicability of this revised scale to the above categories shall be subject to the conditions specified in Col.6 of Annexure-I to this order." It is obvious that the 3rd respondent-College is a composite College and there cannot be any post of Junior Lecturer in the said college. THE request of the petitioners, therefore, is genuine. THE learned Government Pleader for Higher Education submits that the first respondent has initiated process to consider the names of the petitioners also and by mistake their names have not been included in the list of 24 candidates prepared so far for consideration to be appointed as lecturers. In view of the clear legal position and in view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, there is nO difficulty in disposing of the writ petition by giving necessAry direction to the first respondent to redesignate the posts of the petitioners as lecturers with retrospective effect from 12-2-1996. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to redesignate the posts of the petitioners as lecturers with retrospective effect from 12-2-1996. Under the circumstances no order as to costs.

(2.) AS regards the claim of seniority and other benefits, it is for the respondents to fix in accordance with the rules.