The petitioners in all the writ petitions are similarly placed being the Associate Professors working in the second respondent institute. Having a common grievance against the same set of respondents, they filed the present writ petition questioning the proposal of the second respondent to revert them to their feeder category of Assistant Professors. Since there is identity of cause and commonality of the issues raised by the similarly placed persons against the same set of respondents, this Court proposes to dispose of all these four writ petitions through a common judgment. For the ease of reference and felicity of understanding, the discussion of the issue, however, is based on the pleas taken in and exhibits attached to W.P.(C) No.27267/14. 2. All the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors in the year 2007. Through Ext.P2, they were promoted as Assistant Professors with condition that they shall all obtain or acquire Ph.D. qualification on or before 18.7.2014, in terms of the mandatory guidelines stipulated by the AICTE.
3. Later, in 2010, the petitioners were also promoted as Associate Professors. In any event, the petitioners could not acquire Ph.D. qualification as has been stipulated in Ext.P2 within seven years, that is by 18.7.2014. In the light of the condition attached to Ext.P2, since the petitioners could not acquire the qualification, the second respondent issued Ext.P4 notice to the petitioners proposing to revert them to the cadre of Assistant Professors. In fact, the petitioners have been provided an opportunity to explain their stand, if any, against the proposed reversion within seven days there from.
4. The record reveals that the petitioners have submitted Ext.P5 representation explaining the circumstances under which they could not acquire the Ph.D qualification. Apprehending that, without considering their explanation, the second respondent would revert the petitioners, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent has submitted that the respondent authorities will consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioners in accordance with law.
6. Based on the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, it is evident that the petitioners would not be taking any precipitous steps without actually considering Ext.P5 explanation submitted by the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 explanation said to have been submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard in person, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that until the Ext.P5 explanation is considered and appropriate orders are passed thereon, as has been spelt out in Ext.P4, in so far as the petitioners' present position is concerned there shall be a status quo.
It is further made clear that in other writ petitions too the petitioners have filed their explanations under various exhibits. Though Ext.P5 has been specifically referred to, the authorities may as well consider all those other representations of the other petitioners in the manner indicated above.
jes DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE