Ch. Sravanthi vs. Dr. Vinatha Naini

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13827/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19/03/2015 in WA No. 233/2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for The State Of Telangana And The State of Andhra Pradesh) GOWDA RAJENDER Petitioner(s) VERSUS M. RADHA KRISHNA AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With interim relief) WITH SLP(C) No. 13869/2015 [CH. SRAVANTHI V. DR. DAMAYANTHI AND ORS.] (With application for permission to place additional documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 14033/2015 [CH. SRAVANTHI V. DR. VINATHA NAINI AND ORS.] (With application for permission to place additional documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 11/05/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv. In SLP 13827 Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, A.O.R. Ms. Y. Vismai Rao, Adv. Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, Adv. Mr. Sudheer Kumar Reddy, Adv. In others Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashish Rana, Adv. Mr. Shaveer Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Ashish Rana, A.O.R. Signature Not Verified For Respondent(s) Digitally signed by Kalyani Gupta Date: 2015.05.18 Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Adv. 17:09:37 IST Reason: Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, A.O.r. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

PAGE NO. 1OF 4 SLP(C) NO. 13827 OF 2015

O R D E R

ITEM NO.51 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIIA

counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Rao pointed out that the contesting private respondent namely, M. Radhakrishnan, S/o Sathiah, first respondent in SLP(C) 13827 of 2015 is no longer in the service of the State of Andhra Pradesh and since he has joined the Osmania University as Assistant Professor of Zoology. One other factor which the Division Bench has itself noted is that when the matter was pending before the Single Judge, during the pendency of the revision, the State Government constituted a Committee to look into the irregularities committed by the University by GORT NO. 82 dated 11th February, 2011. The Committee submitted its Report on 26th March, 2011. The State Government, based on the Report of the Committee, issued orders setting aside the selections for taking up the process afresh. It is further noted that while the selected candidates in Botany Department challenged the said Government Order and got stay of the operation and implementation of the same, the candidates of the Zoology Department did not challenge the said Government Order.

PAGE NO. 2OF 4 SLP(C) NO. 13827 OF 2015

Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in SLP(C) NO.13869 of 2015 submitted that the Government passed an order setting aside the selection made by the University which was the subject matter of challenge in the main proceedings. The same came to be passed when the subject matter of challenge was partly decided before the Division Bench.

Be that as it may, we find that the Division Bench after finding that Ordinance (2) was not followed by the Selection Committee in stricto senso, the issue calls for fresh look and with that view it has given the

following direction in paragraph 43:-

"We are informed that the Selection Committee has made appointments of several persons on the basis of the recommendations made by the Executive Council and all those persons who were appointed by the very same Executive Council are working since last about 3 to 4 years ad if we hold that the appointments of Dr. Sravanthy and Dr. Gowda are illegal for want of quorum that would seriously jeopardize the interest of all such appointments which were made by the Executive Council with the four members. We, therefore, observe that it would be open tot he University, if they so desire and advised, and if the circumstances so demand, to place all such recommendations of the Selection Committee before the Executive Council afresh, duly constituted as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, and seek approval and confirmation of their appointments with effect from the date on which they were appointed."

PAGE NO. 3OF 4 SLP(C) NO. 13827 OF 2015

 In the said circumstances, we are also convinced that
the direction of the Division Bench does not call for
interference.
However, we only wish to add that the said direction
of the Division Bench should be carried 
out
expeditiously preferably within two months in 
the
interest of the institution and the student community.
With the very same view, we also direct the status quo
to be maintained pending the above said exercise
is
carried out by the University. We also direct 
the
respondent University to carry out the exercise
as
directed by the Division Bench in the above 
said
paragraph and conclude the same within two months from
the date of production of a copy of this order.

It is needless to state that the order is being passed

in respect of the candidates who are parties to these proceedings. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of on the

above terms.

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

[KALYANI GUPTA] [SHARDA KAPOOR]

PAGE NO. 4OF 4