P RAMADEVI Vs. GOVT OF A P
LAWS(APH)-1992-4-53
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 30,1992

P.RAMADEVI Appellant
VERSUS
GOVT.OF A.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned G.O. Rt.No.1626, dated 2-12-87 issued by the 1st respondent herein as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. The 1 st respondent issued the aforesaid Government order directing that the 3rd respondent herein be appointed as lecturer in Economics in the Lai Bahadur College, Warangal -2nd respondent herein in the vacancy caused due to the resignation of one Mr. E Ganga Reddy.
(2.)The 2nd respondent is an aided private college. There is degree college wing and also Junior College, wing in the said college. Petitioner herein was appointed as a part-time lecturer in economics in the said college on a period- wise remuneration of Rs.6/- to teach intermediate classes. While so, the 2nd respondent invited applications for the posts of lecturer in economics, junior lecturer in economics and junior lecturer in civics. The vacancy in the post of lecturer in economics was caused as the working incumbent Mr. P. Sudershan had gone on leave for Faculty Improvement Programme. The vacancy in the post of junior lecturer in economics was caused as one E. Ganga Reddy, who worked in that post, had gone to Government service, keeping lien over this post, and later resigned as junior lecturer in economics. In response to the advertisement dated 21-1-1981, petitioner as well as respondent No.3 applied for the post of lecturer in economics. Petitioner, respondent No.3 and others were interviewed on 22-2-1981. In that interview, respondent No3 was selected as lecturer in economics whereas the petitioner was selected as junior lectuerer in economics. Petitioner as well as respondent No.3 were appointed, in the above said vacancies,on a temporary basis. It was also stated in their appointment orders that their services were terminable without notice. Thereafter, Mr. P. Sudershan who went on leave for Faculty Improvement programme joined duty. Therefore, the service of respondent No.3 was terminated. Against that, respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Director of Higher Education. That appeal was transferred by him to the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Warangal. The Regional Joint Directorof Higher Education, Warangal, directed the 2nd respondent-College to advertise calling for applications to fill up the aforesaid vacancies on a regular basis. Aggrieved by that order of the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Warangal, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Director of Higher Education. The Director of Higher Education referred the matter to the Government observing that he had already transferred an appeal, filed before him by respondent No.3, to the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Warangal, and that against the order of the Regional Joint Director of Higher Eduction Warangal, in that appeal the present appeal was preferred by the petitioner herein. The Government, on such reference being made by the Director of Higher Education, passed the impugned Government Order.
(3.)Sri Devaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly contended that the Government has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It is submitted that the Government is the appellate authority against the orders passed by the Director of Huther Education and therefore the Director of Higher Education has no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Government and the Government has no jurisdiction to pass the order on the reference by the Director of Higher Education. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that Government is the appellate authority under Section 89 of the A.P. Education Act and under Section 90 of the A.P. Education Act it has ample revisionary power. This case being of a peculiar nature, it is contended, the Director of Higher Education, in fitness of things referred the matter to the Government because the present appeal filed before him by the petitioner herein was against the order of the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education in an appeal which he transferred to the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Warangal. Therefore, the reference by the Director of Higher Education to the Government is correct and legal. It is further contended by the Counsel for respondent No.3 that the Government had elaborately considered and passed the impugned order. The Government has jurisdiction to entertain the said reference and pass the impugned order.
;


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