HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 1109 OF 2014 25-08-2014 BETWEEN The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad …Appellant And D. Satyam and four others …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 1109 OF 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
The 1st respondent filed Writ Petition No. 26981 of 2001 stating that he was working as Junior Lecture in the 4th respondent-private junior college admitted to grant-in-aid. The post of Principal became vacant in that institution on 01-08-1995. One Mr. B.H.Ramana Rao who was otherwise eligible to be promoted as Principal is said to have expressed his unwillingness. The 1st respondent, being next in seniority to Ramana Rao, he was entitled to be promoted and instead, the appellant has promoted the 5th respondent, as Principal, though on ad hoc basis. He contends that even after the 5th respondent retired from service in the year 2005, he was not appointed. Another contention of the 1st respondent was that one Mr.
Venkateswara Rao and the 5th respondent have been selected as Lecturers in a degree college established by the same management and they were not entitled to be promoted to the post of Principal. With these and other allegations, the 1st respondent prayed for appropriate relief.
The writ petition was opposed by the appellant herein. Their contention was that the 1st respondent is junior to the 5th respondent and in that view of the matter, he was not entitled to be promoted to the post of Principal even on ad hoc basis.
The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition through order dated 16-12-2013 and directed that the 1st respondent shall be treated as having been appointed as Principal of the 4th respondent–institution with effect from 01-03-1997 and that all the benefits shall be extended to him. The said order is challenged in this appeal.
Heard the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
The 1st respondent did not dispute that he is junior to one Mr. D. Venkateswara Rao and the 5th respondent. The basis for his claim to the post of Principal was that they were already selected as lecturers in the degree college. It is no doubt true that the 5th respondent is said to have filed Writ Petition No. 9095 of 1996, may be in the status of lecturer in the degree college. The fact however remains that he continued to work as Principal on ad hoc basis of the junior college till he retired from service.
Things would have been different altogether had it been a case where the post of Principal was filled up on regular basis. The denial of ad hoc promotion can be interfered with only under limited circumstances. The post of Principal is mostly administrative in nature. For a long time, the post remained vacant or was handled by incumbents on ad hoc basis. Even the 1st respondent functioned on ad hoc basis after the retirement of the 5th respondent. When the 1st respondent did not work as Principal in any capacity whatever prior to 2005, the question of his being treated as Principal on regular basis from 1997 does not arise. However, he shall be entitled to be treated as holding the post of Principal from the date on which he was appointed on
ad hoc basis i.e., 31-07-2005.
Hence, the writ appeal is partly allowed modifying the order passed by the learned single Judge. It is held that the 1st respondent shall be treated as Principal of the 4th respondent- institution with effect from 31-07-2005 till the date of his retirement. However, he shall not be entitled to be paid the difference of wages, for that period and his promotion shall be treated only for the purpose of reckoning the retirement benefits.
The miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 25-08-2014 ks