As per case facts, the petitioner, a part-time lecturer, sought regularization of his services based on a Government Order. His claim of continuous service from an earlier date was disputed ...
Date of reserved for orders : 29.7.2026
Date of pronouncement : 06.8.2026
Date of uploading :
APHC010084362008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THIS THE 6
TH
DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1166 OF 2008
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the
order dated 29.4.2008 and made in WP.No.35149 of 1998 and pass
Between:
1. Dr.G.V.Ramana Murthy, S/o.G.KRISHNA Murthy Part time lecturer
in Chemistry V.R.College, Nellore, R/o.17-65, Ist Floor, Thipparajuvari
street, Nellore-1,Nellore District
...Petitioner
AND
1. The Commissioner for Collegiate Education, Government of A.P.,
Hyderabad
2. The Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur
3. V R Day College, Rep., by its Joint Collector-Cum-Special Officer,
SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. Cause title with respective to
Respondent No.3 was amended as per c.o.dt.11.3.2026 vide I.A.No.3
of 2018.
2
4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur District. Respondent No.4 was impleaded as per
c.o.dt.09.03.2026 vide I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.1166 of 2008.
...Respondents
IA NO: 1 OF 2008(WAMP 2253 OF 2008
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to continue the petitioner as
Part-Time Lecture in the Department of Chemistry pending disposal of
the above writ Appeal and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WAMP 2520 OF 2017
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased permit the petitioner to file the orders, dated 8/13.03.2006
passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Authority,
Kadapa, Order, dated 10-05-2010 made in A.T.A: No. 698(1) of 2006
on the E.P.F Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Order, dated 22-07-2014
made in W.P. No. 12900 of 2010 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and
the affidavit and petition filed in support of the W.P.M.P.No.5092 of
2004 in W.P.No.45149 of 1998 as additional material papers and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to pay the part time
remuneration to which I am entitled to for the period from July, 2001 to
till date and also to continue to pay the same regularly as per the
3
norms prescribed by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh from
time to time., pending disposal of the Writ appeal.
IA NO: 2 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to pay part-time
remuneration to which he is entitled to for the period from July, 2001 to
till date and also to continue to pay the same regularly as per the
norms prescribed by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh from
time to time, pending disposal of the writ appeal.
IA NO: 3 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased to permit me to amend the cause title of the respondent
No.3 i.e., V.R(Day) college rep., by its Secretary and Correspondent,
Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District as V.R (Day) college rep. by its Joint
Collector-cum-Special Officer, SPSR Nellore District Nellore and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased To permit me to file the memo No. 145/Admn. II-2/2012,
dated 05.09.2018, representation, dated 03.06.2019, proceedings in
Rc. No. 8 of RTI Act, 03.06.2019 along with the Proforma as additional
material papers and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
4
be pleased To permit me to add the state of Andhra Pradesh rep by its
principal secretary Higher education department secretariat buildings
Velagapudi Amaravathi Guntur district as the respondent No 4 in writ
appeal no 1166/2008
IA NO: 2 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased to permit me to file the Report in Rc.No.4216/A2/2016-17,
dated 27-01-2017 submitted by the Respondent No.2 as additional
material papers and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner: V R REDDY KOVVURI
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for
the Respondents:S R ASHOK Counsel for the Respondents:P
SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:G RAMESH BABU
The Court made the following order:
5
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Ramesh)
The intra-court appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders dated
29.4.2008 in W.P.No.35149 of 1998 wherein the learned single Judge,
on elaborate consideration of facts and law, has dismissed the said
Writ Petition, with the following observations:
“It is not for this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to sit in appeal over the conclusions recorded by
the 1
st
respondent in the impugned proceedings dated 15.10.1998 or
to take upon itself the task of ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the
petitioner’s contention that he had completed his Ph.D from Sri
Krishna Devaraya University much prior to 1990 or his having been
engaged as an invigilator for the examinations conducted by the Sri
Venkateswara University during the academic year 1989-90 or
whether the other part-time lecturers, whose services were
regularized, were employed by the 3
rd
respondent during the
academic year 1989-90 or not. It is not even the petitioner’s case that
the audit report reflects his having worked during the academic year
1989-90 or from 01.11.1989 till 28.2.1990 as claimed by him in the
present writ petition. In any event, as is evident from the counter
affidavit of the official respondent, G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 is
no longer in force ever since 09.10.1998.”
2. Initially the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition to declare the
proceedings of respondent no.1 dated 15.10.1998 as arbitrary, illegal
and violative of fundamental rights and consequential direction to the
respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in
Chemistry.
3. As per the facts narrated in the Writ Petition, the petitioner has
completed Ph.D even before submitting his thesis. He joined as part-
time lecturer in respondent no.3 college on 01.11.1989 and worked till
28.02.1990 and subsequently again he joined on 01.9.1990 and he
6
continued thereafter. Respondent no.3 college has issued
appointment orders as part time lecturer in Chemistry vide proceedings
dated 20.9.1990 w.e.f. 01.9.1990.
4. While working, the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.328
dated 15.10.1997 formulating a scheme for regularization of services of
part time lecturer working in various colleges in the State subject to
fulfillment of certain conditions specified therein. According to the said
G.O., only who has put in a service of three academic years as on
30.7.1991 or five academic years as on 25.11.1993 as the case may
be and also continuing in service as on the date of issuance of G.O.
are eligible for regularization. Further, the part time lecturers should
have put in 360 working days as on 30.7.1991 and 600 working days
as on 25.11.1993 with or without breaks may be taken into account.
Further consideration of regularization will be on the basis of certificate
issued by concerned Regional Joint Director of Higher Education,
which will be on the basis of certificate issued by the Correspondent of
the concerned college and counter-signed by the principal of private
aided college along with the certificate of audit for the concerned
period.
5. In pursuance to the above said proceedings, respondent no.3/
institution has submitted particulars of the part time lecturers working
against aided posts for regularization. But for the reasons best known,
7
respondent no.3 has submitted proposals of the petitioner taking
service from 01.9.1990 to 25.11.1993 covering only four academic
years, though he has worked for 602 academic working days during
the period from 01.9.1990 to 25.11.1993. But respondent no.1 has
rejected the proposal of respondent no.3 for regularization of the
services of the petitioner on the ground that he has not fulfilled the
conditions enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997.
6. In fact, while submitting the proposals to respondent no.1,
respondent no.3 has submitted proposals of all six part time lecturers
appointed along with the petitioner on 20.9.1990. Mr. K.Srinivasulu
and Smt. M.V.L.Sailaja, Lecturers in Commerce, though they were not
given appointment letters in 1989. Further Mr. Yellamandha Rao, part-
time lecturer in English, particulars were sent subsequent to the
submission of proposals by respondent no.3 by showing working from
February 1990 by separate proceedings of respondent no.3. Hence
bringing him within the eligibility criteria of five years and respondent
no.2 based on the proposals of respondent no.3 sent the report to
respondent no.1 stating that the petitioner and some others had not
completed five years of service and accordingly respondent no.1 has
rejected the case of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 13.4.1998.
But the fact remains even before rejection of the case of the petitioner
vide impugned orders dated 13.4.1998 the petitioner has made
8
representation to respondent no.1 on 27.3.1998 bringing it to the notice
that he worked from November 1989 to 28.02.1990 inclusive of service
certificate issued by Incharge Principal and counter-signed by the
Correspondent. Despite the same, without considering the said
representation, respondent no.1 has issued rejection orders.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner has made one more representation to
respondent no.3 and the same was forwarded to respondent no.1. As
respondent no.3 once again sent proposal for regularization of service
of the petitioner by including the period of service rendered by the
petitioner from 01.11.1989 to 28.02.1990. But surprisingly, respondent
no.1 issued proceedings on 15.10.1990 informing the college with the
request of regularization of services is not feasible. Aggrieved by the
same, the instant Writ Petition is filed.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/appellant
has submitted that the learned single judge has rejected the claim of
the petitioner only on the ground of not tallying the signatures and
discrepancies in two service certificates relied on by the petitioner at
page no.18 of Volume I and page no.92 of Volume No.II is not in
conformity with the records. For more clarity the said observations are
extracted below:
“After the writ petition was heard finally, it was reserved for orders on
14.3.2008. While going through the records, this Court noticed certain
discrepancies in the two certificates relied upon by the petitioner at Pages 13
of Volume-1 and page No.92 of Volume-II. Both these service certificates
were attested by Dr.C.V.S.Bhaskar on the same day i.e., 28.9.1998. Both the
9
service certificates were verbatim extracts of each other, except that the
service certificate at page 18 of Volume-I contained the words "prior to the
date of his appointment i.e., 1.9.1990 he has worked as part-time lecturer
from 1.11.1989 to 28.2.1990", whereas these words were not to be found in
the service certificate at page 92 of Volume No.II. This Court further noticed
that, while the signature of the person who issued the certificate at page
No.18 of Volume-I was hazy and unclear, the signature, on the certificate at
Page No.92 of Volume-II, was that of the Secretary and Correspondent of
the college. This Court also noticed that the gap between the last paragraph
of the certificate at page No.92 of Volume-II and the signature would not
suffice for insertion of the words in italics aforementioned, and, in its
proceedings dated 19.3.2008, observed that a perusal of the two service
certificates showed, prima facie, that the italicized words may have been
inserted into the certificate at Page No.18 of Volume-I subsequently and, if
true, it would not only disentitle the petitioner from any relief on the ground
that he had approached this Court with unclean hands but would also
necessitate his being proceeded against in contempt for trying to mislead
this Court.”
9. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has filed those
documents which are furnished by respondent no.2 office. Hence the
petitioner is not responsible and he has nothing to do with the
proceedings. Accordingly, the observations made by the learned
single judge is baseless and it cannot be said that if any differences in
the proceedings, the petitioner has no connection with that and he is
not responsible also. Further, learned single Judge has also failed to
consider that identical persons i.e. Sri K.Srinivasulu, Smt. M.V.L.Sailaja
and Sri M.Yellamandarao, B.Satyakumar and V.V.Krishna Reddy
cannot be appointed and regularized disseminating the case of the
petitioner. Though relevant material is placed along with the Writ
Petition, learned single Judge failed to consider the said aspect.
Further, the counsel has placed reliance on the order passed by the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and authority under Section 7-
10
A of the Act dated 13.3.2006. Wherein, based on certain complaints,
proceedings have been initiated under Section 7-A of the Provident
Fund Act as against respondent no.3 Institution and finally they found
lapses with regard to payment of provident fund to 15 lecturers
including the petitioner herein. Finally directing to remit the entire
provident fund contribution by way of monthly challan in State Bank of
India failing which recovery order would be passed under Section 8-B
and 8C of Employees Provident Fund and M.P.Act and prosecution
may also be launched. Said orders have been complied by remitting
the amount which clearly discloses that the petitioner has worked from
1989 onwards. Further, he also placed reliance on the office of the
Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education dated 05.9.2018
wherein the Regional Director of Collegiate Education are directed to
obtain records and verify the information from the aided colleges under
their jurisdiction in full shape and submit information duly certified
proforma of individual lecturers/ subject-wise.
10. Reply to the said proceedings, respondent no.2 has submitted
proposals categorically stating that the petitioner has joined duty as
part time lecturer in the Department of Chemistry from 01.11.1989 and
ended till 28.02.1990. This itself clearly discloses that the petitioner
has joined in the year 1989 itself. Based on the above statutory
proceedings issued by the Additional Commissioner, E.P.F. vide its
11
order dated 13.3.2006 and the said orders were complied by
respondent no.3 institution manifestly declares that the petitioner has
joined in the services from November 1989 and worked till 28.02.1990.
Hence the petitioner has fulfilled conditions stipulated in
G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 and apart from that even according
to the Regional Joint Director’s recommendations pursuant to the
communication by respondent no.1 on 15.9.2008 clearly discloses that
the petitioner has worked in respondent no.3 institution in the year
1989. Hence he is eligible to consider for regularization of his services
in terms of G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997. Accordingly requested
to set aside the order in Writ Petition and also the orders passed by
respondent no.1 dated 15.10.1998 with consequential benefits to the
petitioner.
11. Reply to the said contentions, learned Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents have submitted that in fact the
petitioner has made categorical statements in the Writ Petition
No.14788 of 1997 stating that he is working in respondent no.3
institution from 01.9.1990. But surprisingly in the present Writ Petition,
he has not mentioned about filing of the said writ petition in the instant
affidavit and in the said Writ Petition there was no mention about
working of the petitioner from 01.11.1989 to 28.02.1990. This clearly
discloses that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of earlier Writ
12
Petition i.e. W.P.No.14788 of 1997 and also the specific averments
made in the said Writ Petition. This itself clearly discloses that the
working of the petitioner from 1989 to 1990 is only an after thought.
Hence learned single judge has rightly considered the material placed
along with Writ Petition is suspicious. Accordingly rejected the claim of
the petitioner by dismissing the Writ Petition. Hence there is no
requirement of interference as the learned single Judge has considered
each and every aspect while deciding the Writ Petition and has rightly
rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence there is no requirement of
the interference with the said order.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 has
made his submissions based on the counter filed in the Writ Petition by
respondent no.3. He mainly relied on paragraph no.3 and 5 in the
counter which reads as follows:
“After the writ petition was heard finally, it was reserved for orders on
14.3.2008. While going through the records, this Court noticed certain
discrepancies in the two certificates relied upon by the petitioner at Pages 13
of Volume-1 and page No.92 of Volume-II. Both these service certificates
were attested by Dr.C.V.S.Bhaskar on the same day i.e., 28.9.1998. Both the
service certificates were verbatim extracts of each other, except that the
service certificate at page 18 of Volume-I contained the words "prior to the
date of his appointment i.e., 1.9.1990 he has worked as part-time lecturer
from 1.11.1989 to 28.2.1990", whereas these words were not to be found in
the service certificate at page 92 of Volume No.II. This Court further noticed
that, while the signature of the person who issued the certificate at page
No.18 of Volume-I was hazy and unclear, the signature, on the certificate at
Page No.92 of Volume-II, was that of the Secretary and Correspondent of
the college. This Court also noticed that the gap between the last paragraph
of the certificate at page No.92 of Volume-II and the signature would not
suffice for insertion of the words in italics aforementioned, and, in its
proceedings dated 19.3.2008, observed that a perusal of the two service
certificates showed, prima facie, that the italicized words may have been
inserted into the certificate at Page No.18 of Volume-I subsequently and, if
13
true, it would not only disentitle the petitioner from any relief on the ground
that he had approached this Court with unclean hands but would also
necessitate his being proceeded against in contempt for trying to mislead
this Court. The representation dated 27-4-98 of the Petitioner addressed to
the Correspondent of the College was received along with representation of
other P.T. Lecturers through the letter dated 1-5-98 of the Correspondent,
V.R.College, Nellore. In the said representation the petitioner stated that, he
had worked in V.R.College, prior to 1-9-90 during the academic year 1989-
90 and requested for regularization of his service. The Correspondent,
V.R.College, Nellore submitted the representation of the Petitioner along with
representations of other Part Time Lecturers requesting to consider the
cases. Immediately the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur
vas requested to go personally to V.R.College, Nellore and verify the original
record and to submit her report. Accordingly the Regional Joint Director of
Higher Education, Guntur visited V.R.College, Nellore on 30-9-98. During the
course of the verification, the Correspondent of the College stated that the
Part Time Lecturers whose proposals were rejected have approached the
management stating that they had put up some service in earlier years which
was not taken into consideration for regularization of their services and the
said representations were forwarded to the Commissioner of Collegiate
Education, A.P., Hyderabad. Further the Correspondent stated that the said
additional information does not have any reflection in the college records. To
a question why he had submitted the additional information direct to the
Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad without intimation to
the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur, the Correspondent
replied that due to the fact that the time given in G.D.Me.Fo.117 Bin dated
16-4-98 was expiring, he had forwarded to the representation direct to the
Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad. It was not intentional to
bye-pass the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur.
At the time of verification, the Correspondent, of the College,
submitted only copies of the service certificates furnished by the Part Time
Lecturers along with copies of examination invigilation duties. No other
evidence supporting the service certificates furnished by the Part Time
Lecturers were produced. The Secretary & Correspondent has stated that
the then management had engaged the services of the Part Condition at
Time Lecturers only on confidential basis. Basing on the report of the
Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur and as the petitioner has
not fulfilled the condition of 3 academic years and 360 working days as on
30-7-91 or 5 academic years and 600 days as on 25-11-95 his request for
regularization was once again rejected vide Commissioner's
Proc.L.Dis.No.272/PO, II-1/98, dated 15-10-98.
13. Further he has submitted that the management only forwarded
based on the request made by the petitioner for re-consideration and
the management did not accede to his request as there was no truth in
the said plea and in fact no material is forthcoming from respondent
14
no.3 college to establish that his services were engaged prior to
September 1990. In fact on verification of all the records including
audit report of the academic year 1989-90, respondent no.3 has come
to bonafide conclusion that the services of the petitioner were never
engaged prior to 01.9.1990. Hence the petitioner has not worked in 3
rd
respondent institution before 01.9.1990.
14. Considering the submissions made by all the counsel, though
the learned single Judge has made certain observations with regard to
two service certificates placed by the petitioner along with the Writ
Petition but this Court is not inclined to go into such aspects. But fact
remains that on perusal of the observations made that the petitioner
failed to mention about the filing of earlier Writ Petition i.e.
W.P.No.14788 of 1997 and further the averments made in the said writ
petition is also required to be considered. In fact when specifically a
issue was raised by the respondent, surprisingly, the petitioner has not
taken that it is a typographical mistake. Further the petitioner/appellant
has made reliance on the orders passed by the statutory authority
under Section 7 of the E.P.F.Act and M.P.Act. But the fact remains
that material is not sufficient or suffice to declare that the petitioner has
worked in the institute before 01.9.1990. When the G.O.No.328 dated
15.10.1997 prescribes certain conditions for regularization of part-time
lecturers working in private aided institutions and mandates three
15
academic years as on 30.7.1991 or five academic years as on
25.11.1993 and 360 & 600 days respectively. Further the counting of
said service shall be signed by the concerned Regional Joint Director
of Higher Education and counter signed by the Commissioner of
Collegiate Education. Said certificate shall be issued by Regional Joint
Director based on the certificates issued by the correspondents of the
respective colleges and counter-signed by the Principal of private
colleges. In the instant case as the service rendered by the petitioner
prior to 01.9.1990 is disputed by respondent no.3 institution and with a
categorical statement in the counter that no record is forthcoming with
regard to working of the petitioner prior to 01.9.1990 and the said
aspect cannot be gone into by the Writ Court. Admittedly the issue
involved in the Writ Petition is dispute with regard to the service
rendered by the petitioner from November 1989 to February 1990.
That should be determined as per the conditions enumerated in the
G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997. Admittedly as per the said G.O, the
service certificates have to be submitted by the Regional Joint Director
based on the certificates issued by the Correspondent of the said
institution. Here in the instant case, admittedly respondent no.3
institution has disputed the working of the petitioner prior to 01.9.1990.
In fact respondent no.1 has also re-considered the entire issue after re-
submission of the proposals by respondent no.3. On perusal of the
16
counter filed by respondent no.1 discloses that respondent no.1 once
again requested the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education,
Guntur to physically attend the V.R.College, Nellore i.e. respondent
no.3 and verify the original records and submit her report. Based on
the said directions, the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education,
Guntur visited the V.R.College on 30.9.1998 and during the verification,
the Correspondent of the College stated that part-time lecturers whose
proposal were rejected have approached the Management stating that
they have put up some service in the earlier years. Further the report
also discloses that no record is found with regard to reflecting the
working of petitioner before 1990 in the College records. That itself
clearly discloses that respondent no.1 not rejected the claim of the
petitioner vide impugned order dated 15.10.1998 automatically, only
after due consideration, also after verification of the entire record and
as per report of the Regional Joint Director, the impugned orders have
been passed.
15. Considering the entire record, learned single Judge has rightly
held that as the issue involved in the Writ Petition is factual dispute,
hence this Court cannot be gone into and to decide the factual aspect
by declaring that the petitioner has worked from 1989 to 1990.
Accordingly, learned single Judge has rightly declared that the
impugned orders dated 09.10.1998 are in conformity with the
17
G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1998. Hence this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the findings recorded by the learned single Judge.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in
the writ appeal, shall also stand closed.
__________________
JUSTICE D.RAMESH
__________________________
JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
06.8.2026
RD
18
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1166 of 2008
06.8.2026
RD
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....