COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION Vs. R. SRINIVAS
LAWS(SC)-2016-4-104
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 19,2016

COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION Appellant
VERSUS
R. Srinivas Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Earlier by our order dated 16.12.2014 we noted the stand of Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, that the State Government has taken the initiative to implement our suggestion made in our order dated 28.10.2014, a Scheme has been formulated on 19.1.2015. Under the said Scheme, the State has now come forward with the following proposals: - "After careful examination of the matter in order to regulate the appointment of lecturers in Aided Colleges and encourage the institutions which have NAAC accredition, the Government have agreed the above proposal subject to the following modifications: a) Filling of vacancies in those subjects where there is a need, based on the norms relating to student teacher ratio. Subject to the above, the vacancies, in the Colleges which have 'A' grading assigned by the NAAC should be filled and 50% of the vacancies in the Colleges with 'B' grade should be filled, provided there is sufficient work load. b) The Government favours direct recruitment to the above vacancies, in which the teachers working in un -aided posts should also be given an opportunity to compete along with others, provided they fulfill all the eligibility criteria except the upper age limit, which should be relaxed to (45) years as proposed at Para -1(5) above. c) The proposal in Para -1(4) above is considered and decided to give weightage of (10) marks to the un -aided Lecturers who worked minimum (10) years and an increase of marks per each year subject to a maximum of (15) years, if such a weightage is given based on an objective criteria of performance. d) Rule of Reservation should be followed. 4. Therefore, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad is requested to take further necessary action in the matter and appraise the Supreme Court of India, accordingly."
(3.) To the said Scheme, objections were filed on behalf of the contesting private respondents on 2.2.2015. Along with the objections, the profiles of the private respondents have also been furnished under Annexure A3, which discloses that out of eight respondents, Respondents -Smt. Neela Krishna Veni, Smt. M. Madhavi and Dr. K. Hanuma Reddy have crossed the age limit of 45 years and thereby they will not be able to fall within the condition set out in paragraph 3(b) of the Scheme. As far as, rest of the candidates are concerned, we find that except Respondents -Dr. P. Venugopal and Dr. K. Hanuma Reddy the other respondents do not fulfill the educational qualification, namely, having passed National Eligibility Test (NET) though all of them are possessing M. Phil qualification to their credit. That apart, it is not in dispute that all the eight candidates are presently working in the unaided posts in the institution having 'A' Grade assigned by NAAC and thereby the said requirement set out in the Scheme of the Government is also fulfilled. Having considered the above particulars pertaining to the private respondents, we also noticed that each one of them have put in service ranging from 14 years (minimum) to 23 years (maximum).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.