P.R. Naidu, Vice-Chancellor, Sri Krishna Devaraya University and Another vs D. Chandramouli Reddy

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—This L.P.A. is directed against the order dated 29-1-1998 passed by a learned single Judge in Contempt Case No. 1387 of 1996. The said contempt case arose out of an order passed in W.P. No. 7664 of 1994. By the order dated 11-8-1994 passed in the said writ petition, this Court directed to consider the case of the respondent for according approval to the Resolution passed by the Board of Management on 8-9-1992 to appoint the petitioner as a Lecturer in Political Sciences on compassionate grounds. A time of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of the said order was stipulated.

It may be necessary to state few facts. Father of the respondent, namely, Venkat Reddy, was a Professor in the discipline of Chemistry in Srikrishna Devaraya University at Anantapur. While in service, he died on 21-5-1990 and the respondent had sought for appointment as Teaching Assistant. But, he was appointed as a Junior Assistant on a regular scale of pay as per G.O. Ms. No. 1005, dated 27-12-1994. Pursuant to the representation dated 21-11-1992 by the respondent, the University had appointed the respondent as Teaching Assistant, but on ad hoc basis for a period of three months on a consolidated pay of Rs. 750/- per month. The same was being extended from time to time, but, ultimately, as there was no workload in the Department to accommodate Teaching Assistant, the respondent was offered the post of Junior Assistant, which was not acceptable to him. Result was the writ petition mentioned above and the order passed therein. Pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 11-8-1994 issued in W.P. No. 7664/1994, the Board of Management met on 7-9-1994 to consider the case of the respondent and on considering the case of the respondent, had resolved that the Vice-Chancellor had no power to appoint Lecturers on compassionate grounds in view of the Rules framed by the State Government which were in accordance with the guidelines of University Grants Commission and affirmed to appoint the respondent as Junior Assistant as per G.O.Ms. No. 1005, dated 27-12-1994 mentioned supra. This was taken as a contemptuous act and was the subject matter of the contempt case. In the contempt case, the order passed is to the following effect:

"Having regard to the circumstances, as it is the duty of the respondents to comply with the directions given by this Court, the respondents are directed to comply with the directions given in W.P. No. 7664 of 1994, dated 11-8-1994 i.e., to consider the case of the petitioner for according approval to the resolution passed by the Board of Management on 8-9-1992 to appoint the petitioner as a Lecturer in Political Sciences on compassionate grounds, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order positively, if not already complied with and to intimate the decision to the petitioner."

The respondent construes this as a mandate to appoint him and that is how the University is aggrieved and filed this Appeal.

Mr. V. Venkataramanaiah, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the appellants, submits that the order of the learned single Judge has been complied with and there was no cause for filing the contempt case. He submits that a direction was issued to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to the post of Teaching Assistant and in view of the embargo placed by the Government, following the norms and guidelines set by the University Grants Commission, the respondent cannot be given the post of Teaching Assistant. He also states Section 49 of A.P. Universities Act, 1991, requires prior permission of the Government for creation of a post and that unless a Teaching Assistant''s post is created, there cannot be any appointment thereto. He also submits that even though there is a Teacher''s post in Sociology, the same is meant for Scheduled Caste category and the same cannot be given to the respondent who is from Open Category. Countering the argument of the learned Advocate-General, Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, the learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously contends that the order of the learned single Judge had become final and that there is no alternative for the appellants, but to comply the said order and that order was validly passed by the learned single Judge to appoint the respondent as a Teaching Assistant. He also submits that this L.P.A. is not maintainable.

With regard to the maintainability of the L.P.A., a Division Bench of this Court had already ruled in Md. Kamarudjama, Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanumakonda and another Vs. Elaboina Ramesh and others, that if the order passed by a learned single Judge in contempt case is at variance with the original order passed in the main case (writ petition in the instant case), then Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. In so far as the merits of the L.P.A. are concerned, we do not read the order of the learned single Judge as giving a mandate to the appellants to appoint the respondent as Teaching Assistant. What the learned single Judge directed was to consider the case of the petitioner and the language employed both in the writ petition and the contempt case, is the same, which only implies that if the legal provisions permit for appointment of the respondent to the post of Teaching Assistant, then his case should be considered. But, in the instant case, the rules do not permit for appointment of the respondent as Teaching Assistant for the reason that there is no post available and for creating a post, Vice-Chancellor is not the authority. But, the Government is the authority and there is no direction to the Government to create any post and in the absence of the same, the Vice-Chancellor is not having jurisdiction to appoint the respondent to the Teaching post and even the Teaching post, which is vacant now is in the discipline of Sociology, while the respondent is asking for a Teaching post in the discipline of Political Sciences. But, even that vacant post in the Sociology is one intended for Scheduled Caste candidate and the said reserved post cannot be made available to the respondent, as he belongs to Open Category. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no inaction on the part of the appellants in complying the orders of the learned single Judge and that the respondent is not entitled to claim the post of Teaching Assistant, per force. It is noticed that in number of cases, orders are being passed, be it by this Court or by the Administrative Tribunals to consider the cases of the petitioners approaching with complaints that their cases have not been considered. The word Consider cannot be equated as adjudication of the right of the petitioner. It is not even a mandate to the authority receiving the directions to allow the claim of the petitioner straightaway. The direction ''to consider'' has to be construed as a duty cast upon the authority receiving the said direction to dispose of the claim made by the petitioner in the light of the rules governing the situation and also subject to the eligibility of the claimant to such a claim. The authorities should take note of this factor, as some times, they are misconstruing the direction ''to consider'' as a mandate by the Judicial authority to allow the claim of the petitioner straightaway regardless of the rule position or the eligibility. The L.P.A. is allowed accordingly. No costs.