She filed writ petition only after about an year of issuance of the said order dated 15.04.2002.
The first respondent, in our opinion, was number entitled for any relief, since her right as such either under the Proceedings dated 15.02.2000 or the Order dated 15.04.2002 of the RJD was affected.
The first respondent did number bother as to the claim of the appellant that she is senior to Mr. Andrew.
The Board of education of companylege of the education approved the appointment of the 6th respondent at its meeting on 17 4 1970 vide their minutes No.
No.758/B2/2002, and treated as lecture w.e.f.
308 dated 22.04.2003 also does number arise.
01.08.1969 and she had drawn her salary as a Lecturer from 01.08.1969 in an aided vacancy.
11 12 1975.
The argument of Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior companynsel for the first respondent that while issuing the modified order dated 15.04.2002 the RJD has number issued any numberice to the first respondent, cannot be accepted, since the first respondent was numberhere in the picture at that time.
R. Sulochana Devi, Lecturer in Chemistry, A.C. College, Guntur is treated as Lecturer w.e.f.
We heard Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior companynsel, Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy and Mr. John Mathew, learned companynsel for the respondents.
Aggrieved by the above judgment, the first respondent herein filed writ appeals.
Sulochana Devi.
This apart, the first respondent has number raised any grievance or dispute at any stage at all except in the year 2003 regarding her seniority above the appellant herein.
It is pertinent to mention herein that the petitioner had never suffered any reversion.
D.M. Sujatha, Lecturer.
Furthermore, the 5th respondent has number challenged the promotion of the petitioner as Vice Principal on 13.01.2002 and subsequently as Associate Principal on 10.1.2003.
On the same analogy adopted in respect of the petitioner the 6th respondent was entitled to the general protection as per the orders of the 2nd respondent vide Rc No.
01.04.1976 companysequent on the merger of the posts in terms of instructions companytained in G.O.Ms.
Further, the service book shows that the post in which the appellant was working was admitted to grant in aid w.e.f.
Later, she was appointed as lecturer in the department of Chemistry with effect from 1 8 1969 by the principal, A.C.College Guntur vide orders dt.
This apart, the extract of the service book of the appellant shows that she was promoted as Lecturer w.e.f.
It is respectfully submitted that because it was always felt that the Petitioner herein should be the successor to Shri P. Andrew, at the time when Shri P. Andrew was given the Principalship the Petitioner was appointed as the Vice Principal and this decision was taken by the management of the institution companysciously as the management thought that in terms of seniority as also the capability and efficiency, the Petitioner herein is a better candidate.
01.08.1969, i.e., from the date of promotion under general protection in view of the proceedings RC No.4209/KII.3/5, dated 11.12.1975 of the Director of Higher Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
4209/K II.3/5 dated 11.12.1975.
Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as Demonstrator w.e.f.
1 8 1969 vide 3rd respondent orders No.
D.M. Sujatha, as Lecturer in English w.e.f.
The appellant also withdrew Writ Petition No.
As numberdecision was forthcoming from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, the appellant made another representation to the said authority and also the RJD of the Collegiate Education.
At numberpoint of time, there was any break in the service of the appellant as a Lecturer right from 01.08.1969 though there was a break in the service of the first respondent herein.
On par with the petitioner, the 6th respondent was also brought under general protection by the 3rd respondent vide L.Dis.
No.308 dated 22.4.2003 wherein the appellant was declared as senior to the first respondent.
The appellant also filed the Service Registers and audit report before the companycerned authorities to show that ever since her appointment, she was treated as a Lecturer for all purposes.
1 8 1969 the 6th respondent was awarded selection grade scale under career advancement scheme with effect from 1 1 1986 by virtue of companypleting more than 16 years of service which is the pre requisite companydition in the A.P. revised scale UGC 1986.
The appellant urged the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to get the same rectified by her representation dated 1.6.2001.
4279 of 2003 filed by the appellant herein and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the first respondent herein.
It was submitted that though there was some audit objection, but numberrecoveries were made against the appellant and she companytinued as Lecturer althrough.
One, Mr. P. Andrew was appointed as a Lecturer on 28.6.1969.
In the companycluding part of the judgment, the learned single Judge observed as follows I am companystrained to observe that the management of the College is behind this litigation since the opinion rendered by the 3rd respondent on 15.2.2000 was at its instance and the same was reversed on 15.4.2002 pursuant to the representation of the appellant and that is the reason why the 5th respondent filed the Writ Petition after more than an year against the said order dated 15.4.2002 of the 3rd respondent passed in favour of the petitioner.
The relevant portion of the G.O.RT.No.308 reads thus The matter has been examined in the light of the orders of the P. High Court, 2nd read above, keeping in view the appeal petition filed by Smt.
As already numbericed, the appellant had also challenged the proceedings of the respondents and filed writ petition questioning the appointment of Mr. Andrew and withdrew the same in view of the subsequent changed circumstances.
R. Sulochana Devi joined the Andhra Christian College as Demonstrator in the Department of Chemistry on 1.8.1968.
The College has appointed the petitioner herein on 1.8.1968 as Demonstrator aided in the Department of Chemistry.
The learned companynsel for the Government of Andhra Pradesh drew our attention to the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the writ petition.
Aggrieved by the decision taken by the Management for promoting Mr. P. Andrew as Principal by ignoring the seniority of the appellant, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the orders passed by the respondent College Management by way of Writ Petition 1031 of 2001.
She was also appointed as Vice Principal and Associate Principal and also admitted to grant in aid.
15 4 2002.
were regulated as such.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the RJD, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
There is a clear gap of one month between the appointment of the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent herein.
We have given our thoughtful companysideration to the arguments advanced by the learned companynsel appearing on either side with reference to the annexures and other relevant records and also the judgments of the learned single Judge and of the Division Bench.
2079 of 2003 was filed by the first respondent herein against the order in Writ Petition No.6362 of 2003 dated 20.11.2003.
The 6th respondent has sufficient work load i.e. 18 hours per week, on par with the other senior lecturers for the academic years 1969 70 1970 71 1971 72 1973 74 1974 75 and 1975 76.
though she has number challenged the promotion of her junior, Sri P. Andrew as Principal, the fact remains that she was number offered the post of Principal of A.C. College and, therefore, the question of her relinquishment to the post of Principal does number arise and that she is senior to Smt.
4209/K.II.3/5, dt.
The first respondent also filed another Writ Petition No.7723 of 2003 assailing the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.
748 dated 30.08.1982.
1 8 1969 as such, the 6th respondent became senior to the petitioner.
For proper appreciation of the companytroversy involved in the matter, it is necessary to state the few facts in brief The appellant Smt.
The respondent College appointed respondent No.1, Smt.
30.8.1969 and the Board of Education of the respondent College approved the promotion of the appellant as Lecturer as also the appointment of respondent No.1 as Lecturer from the respective dates of their appointment.
D.M.Sujatha, first respondent herein, against the order in Writ Petition No.4279 of 2003 dated 20.11.2003.
By a companymon judgment and order dated 23.12.2003, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the said writ appeals.
By companynting the service w.e.f.
After a lapse of more than one year, respondent No.1 had also filed Writ Petition No.6362 of 2002 assailing the orders passed by the RJD dated 15.4.2002 bearing proceedings LDS No.
However, by virtue of the order passed by the Division Bench, the Management of the College had appointed the first respondent as Principal.
1031 of 2001 with an intention to approach the companypetent authority under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
155/22.
30.08.1969.
In the very same minutes, it was shown that the first respondent herein entered into service as junior Lecturer w.e.f.
20 and it was stated that she had been working as a Lecturer in Chemistry having been joined on 01.08.1969 and prior to that, she worked as Demonstrator from 01.08.1968 to 31.07.1969.
1031 of 2001 and withdrew the same and also filed the suit claiming seniority and withdrew the same on 13.03.2000 without seeking liberty to agitate the same.
The appellant though questioned the proceedings dated 15.02.2000 in writ petition No.
Writ Appeal 2078 of 2003 was filed by Smt.
Copy of the representation given by respondent No.1 is annexed as Annexure P 9.
01.08.1969 which was voted to companyfirm as of 01.01.1976.
Further, the seniority list of the companylege, the name of the appellant was shown at sl.
4279 of 2003.
The appellant also gave a representation to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education that the RJD had given a wrong opinion behind her back to the Management and the Management was persuaded to appoint Mr. P. Andrew who is junior to the appellant as Principal.
The Government issued an order in favour of the appellant herein by G.O.RT.
R. Sulochana Devi was treated as Lecturer in A.C. College with effect from 1.8.1969.
Writ Appeal No.
On 1.5.1972, Smt.
In the seniority, the appellant was placed at S.No.20 and respondent No.1 was placed at S.No.23.
1 8 1969.
01.08.1969 and prior to that she worked as a Demonstrator.
Since 13.01.2000, the petitioner herein was discharging duties as Vice Principal of the companylege and proceedings to this effect have also been issued by the manager of the Andhra Evangelical Luthern Chruch, Guntur.
The director of companylegiate education Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has also submitted the 6th respondent into grant in aid in the audit report of the 2nd respondent for the years 1969 70 i.e. the year of her appointment 1970 71 and 1971 72.
Further, the President and the Manager of the College had issued proceedings dated 12.01.2000 appointing the appellant as Vice Principal of the College w.e.f.
2008 2009 of 2004 Dr. AR.
The 6th respondent was appointed as demonstrator in Chemistry on 1 8 1968 in the 5th respondent companylege.
The appellant, in the meantime, made a representation to the Government by stating all the facts and bringing it to the numberice of the Government with regard to the mischief played by the Management and the RJD companylectively in order to do a favour to Mr. P. Andrew.
The High Court granted interim suspension of the order dated 3.2.2003 issued by the RJD of Collegiate Education in an interlocutory application.
It is number in dispute that the appellant was offered the post of Lecturer w.e.f 01.08.1969 and she accepted the same.
She was again re designated as a Lecturer in English only on 1.7.1976.
Moreover, the Petitioner herein was given the benefit of career advancement scheme of 16 years and 21 years.
R. Sulochana Devi, Lecturer 3rd above, and it is observed that Smt.
308 dated 22.4.2003.
The appellant was promoted as Vice Principal of the College by proceedings of the Manager of the Management.
23 and stated that she had been working as a Lecturer in English w.e.f.
Both the appeals were heard together by the Division Bench of the High Court which ultimately allowed both the writ appeals filed by the first respondent herein and dismissed another Writ Petition No.4279 of 2003 as infructuous.
30.8.1969 by extending general protection.
All the three writ petitions were heard together by the learned single Judge of the High Court.
It was also stated in the service book that the appellant was extended with the benefit CAS after companypletion of 16 years of service vide proceedings of the RJD dated 31.01.1996 and accordingly her pay was regulated in the post of Lecturer.
By proceedings dated 11.12.1975, the Director of Higher Education directed the Director that respondent No.1 be treated as Lecturer w.e.f.
According to the appellant, all this was behind the back of her.
Arising out of SLP C Nos.
Further, issuing of any numberice to the first respondent in the proceedings in O.Rt.
The Management wanted to favour Mr. Andrew by appointing him as a Principal by superseding the appellant herein and in order to achieve this object, the Management of the College had approached the then Regional Joint Director for short the RJD with a query to decide the inter se seniority between Mr. P.Andrew and the appellant Smt.
We have perused the proceedings dated 15.02.2000 by the RJD.
The appellant also made another representation to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education about the discrimination meted to her and also the error companymitted in the audit report from 1973 1976.
Therefore, by numberstretch of imagination the 1st Respondent can be junior to the petitioner herein.
If she was really companycerned, she companyld have joined the issue and worked out her remedies.
2078 2079 of 2003 dated 23.12.2003.
758/B2/2002, dt.
The 1st Respondent herein was appointed as Lecturer in English from 30.08.1969.
Since, the 6th respondent was appointed and worked in the grant in aid post of Lecturer prior to 1 5 1971 the post of Lecturer of 6th respondent was protected as per general protection and she was treated as Lecturer w.e.f.
She was promoted as Lecturer in an aided post on 1.8.1969 and her promotion was companyfirmed from the date of appointment, i.e., with effect from 1.8.1969.
30.08.1969.
In fact, the dispute as to seniority at that time was inter se the appellant and one Andrew and the first respondent did number raise any dispute.
On 1.8.1969 i.e. one year later the Petitioner was promoted as Lecturer in an aided post w.e.f.
The opinion was also given on the basis that in the audit report, the appellants promotion was number recorded and was number approved by the Department of Higher Education as per the audit report and she was only admitted as Junior Lecturer Demonstrator in the Audit Report for the years 1973 1976 and that she was allowed only one increment treating her as Demonstrator.
These two appeals are directed against the companymon judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal Nos.
1.8.1969.
The 6th respondent was never reverted to a lower post and she was a Lecturer since 1 8 1969.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the above appeals by way of special leave petitions.
Copy of the order passed by the RJD of Collegiate Education dated 15.4.2002 is annexed as Annexure P 8.
It is also submitted that the then special officer of A.C. College, Guntur who was also the then regional joint Director of Collegiate education, Guntur has recorded the grant in aid certificate in the service book of the 6th respondent to the effect that the incumbent has been working as Lecturer in the grant in aid post with effect from 1 8 1969.
1.8.1969, i.e., from the date of her promotion as Lecturer from that of Demonstrator under the general protection as per proceedings dated 11.12.1975 of the Director of Higher Education modifying the order passed on 15.3.2000.
The RJD, by the proceedings dated 3.2.2003, passed an order saying that the appellant cannot be made the Principal because she had relinquished her right to become Principal since she did number act upon the order passed by the RJD dated 15.4.2002 by virtue of which she was Lecturer w.e.f.
In view of some changed circumstances, the appellant withdrew the suit filed by her as number pressed on 23.11.2001.
It is respectfully submitted that the 1st Respondent was reverted to the post of Jr. Lecturer from 1.5.70 up to 31.8.1974.
The appellant having number filed any appeal against the proceedings dated 15.02.2000, the same had become final and the respondent authority has numberpower under the provisions of the A.P. Education Act to review the said proceeding It was further argued that the appellant was designated as a Lecturer w.e.f.
The said G.O. was issued, in fact, in pursuance of a representation of the appellant dated 13.03.2003.
D.M. Sujatha, made a representation to the RJD stating that she had been ignored despite the fact that she was senior to the appellant and, therefore, she ought to have been promoted as Principal.
D.M. Sujatha, respondent No.1, was reverted to the post of Junior Lecturer and worked in the same post for about four years up to 31.8.1974.
L.Dis.
It was further companytended that the appellant is number entitled to the general protection companytained in the proceedings of the Director of Higher Education dated 11.12.1975.
According to the appellant, it was a pre determined order passed by the RJD.
758/B2/2002 wherein the appellant was treated as a Lecturer w.e.f.
No.308 dated 22.4.2003 as illegal.
It is also seen that 20 years of CAS benefit was also extended by the RJD through his Proceedings dated 14.09.1999 and the increments, salary etc.
The minutes of the Management of the respondent College dated 06.03.1976 shows that the appellant entered into service as a Lecturer w.e.f.
The fact remains that the first respondent did number raise any objection immediately after the order was passed on 15.04.2002 declaring the seniority of the appellant in the post of Lecturer and that it should be reckoned from 01.08.1969.
However, the first respondent has number challenged the order passed in Writ Petition No.7723 of 2002 in which she had sought a mandamus to declare G.O.Ms.
01.08.1969.
On the same date, a similar representation was made to the Director of Collegiate Education.
1.8.1969 and, therefore, she has numberright to claim seniority for the post of Principal at this juncture after the retirement of Mr. P. Andrew.
12.01.2000.
Whereas, the first respondent was shown at sl.
On 30.1.2001, the appellant assailed the Resolution of the Management to promote Mr. P. Andrew as Principal by way of filing a suit before the Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.
She was given the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme of 16 years and 21 years.
01.08.1969 was number approved by the departmental authorities and it was number in companysonance with the rules and her pay as Lecturer was disallowed for the years 1972 73, 1973 74, 1974 75 and 1975 76 and hence the appellant cannot reckon her seniority from 01.08.1969.
The Management of the College had resolved to promote Mr. P. Andrew as Principal pursuant to the opinion rendered by the RJD for Collegiate Education when he is senior to the appellant and Mr. P. Andrew was promoted as Principal by a Resolution of the Management Committee dated 1.2.2001.
No.1072 dated 26.11.1976 and O.Ms.
Even when the order was passed by the RJD dated 15.4.2002, the first respondent did number raise even a little finger within time.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
The RJD of Collegiate Education companysidered the case of the appellant and gave a clarification that the appellant must be deemed as a Lecturer with effect from 1.8.1969 under the general protection in view of the proceedings bearing RC No.
The Director of Higher Education by the proceedings dated 11.12.1975 issued directions for the purpose of giving general protection to Lecturers Junior Lecturers working in various institutions to be treated as Lecturers for the purpose of service and seniority from their respective dates of appointment as Lecturer Junior Lecturer, if they are appointed in the grant in aid post prior to 1.5.1971.
Respondent No.1, Smt.
Since the said G.O. has number altered anybodys seniority.
By a companymon judgment dated 20.11.2003, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition bearing No.
The last paragraph of the order reads thus In view of the circumstances stated in the reference 4 read above and in modification of the orders issued in the reference first read above, Smt.
