M Swapna vs The Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University

Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not declaring the probation of the petitioner as Assistant Professor, Department of Bio-Chemistry, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Andhra Pradesh, and also to declare the proceedings issued in Memo No.8007/SER.II/A1/2015, dated 29.06.2021, as illegal and arbitrary, in view of the dismissal of Writ Petition No.14071 of 2014, dated 29.08.2022.

Heard Ms.P.Satya Haritha, learned counsel representing Mr.Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms.R.Sowmya, learned counsel representing Ms.S.Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

The grievance of the petitioner is that, petitioner joined in service as Assistant Professor, Agriculture Bio-Chemistry, on 21.02.2014 in the respondent-University pursuant to the selection process. Thereafter, basing on certain complaints against the petitioner and also a Writ Petition filed by one Smt.Haseena Bhanu, who participated in the selection process along with the petitioner and was unsuccessful, alleging plagiarism against the petitioner, the respondent-University vide proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition, informed the petitioner that the allegations made against the petitioner regarding plagiarism in the selection process are still pending in Writ Petition No.14071 of 2014 and the issue of declaration of probation of the petitioner cannot be taken up in view of the above pending Writ Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Writ Petition was also dismissed on 29.08.2022, as the petitioner therein was no more and, accordingly, the proceedings are abated. The reason mentioned in the said rejection order is only with regard to pendency of the Writ Petition based on the alleged complaint made by the petitioner therein against the petitioner herein, and the said Writ Petition is now dismissed as abated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that under Rule 18(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, unless the period of probation is extended or the probationer is discharged, on expiry of the prescribed period of probation or on completion of extended period of probation, the probation shall be deemed to have been completed satisfactorily. Here, in the instant case, petitioner was joined in service on 21.02.2014, and by 20.02.2016, petitioner’s probation ought to have been completed. However, the respondent authorities, without either extending the period of probation or taking any other action for discharge of the petitioner, had kept declaration of probation pending in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition.

As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 29.08.2022 and in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-University as well as in the written instructions submitted, had taken a stand that an Ethics Committee was constituted regarding the allegations against the petitioner and petitioner was directed to appear before the Ethics Committee on 12.01.2023 along with necessary documents and submit her explanation before the Ethics Committee. Accordingly, she appeared and submitted explanation and the Ethics Committee submitted its report dated 26.02.2024, stating that research articles submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment were found to be fraudulent, and certain recommendations were made by the Ethics Committee.

As per the procedure, the report of the Ethics Committee has to be placed before the Board of Management for taking a decision. Even the order of refusal, which is impugned in the Writ Petition, was passed only on the ground of pendency of Writ Petition and the other allegations regarding plagiarism and petitioner appearing before Ethics Committee and also the report of the Ethics Committee are not subject matters of this Writ Petition, and the impugned order does not speak about the said reasons. However, if the appointment of petitioner is found to be contrary to law or based on any information regarding her qualification or eligibility, or is found to be based on fraudulent or fake documents/information, it is always open to the respondent-University to proceed against the petitioner and take appropriate action against the petitioner. Therefore, in the instant case, the only reason assigned by the respondent-University for refusing to declare the probation is pendency of Writ Petition.

As per Rule 18(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, neither the probation was extended nor the petitioner was discharged from service, and hence, the probation is deemed to have been completed on expiry of prescribed period of probation. As such, the order impugned in the Writ Petition vide proceedings issued in Memo No.8007/SER.II/A1/2015, dated 29.06.2021, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent-University for declaration of the probation of the petitioner in terms of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, particularly Rule 18(b)(ii), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that mere declaration of probation will not debar the respondent-University from proceeding with action on the allegation on which the Ethics Committee made its recommendations, in accordance with law duly placing the matter before the Board of Management.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.