Writ Appeal No. 1491 of 2012 and Writ petition No. 34156 of 2012. Case: 1. Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, 2. Sri. M. Devender Reddy Vs 1. Sri. M. Devender Reddy and Ors. [Alongwith WA Nos. 1522 of 2012 and 13 of 2013], 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [Alongwith PIL No. 387 of 2012]. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Writ Appeal No. 1491 of 2012 and Writ petition No. 34156 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: The Advocate General for Sri. T. Durga Reddy, SC for Angrau, Sri. M. Ravindranath Reddy, Sri. G. Mohan Rao and Sri. J. Ramachandra Rao, Advs. and For Respondents: Sri. G. Mohan Rao, Sri. Deepak Bhattacharjee, Sri. Ponnam Ashok Goud Assistant Solicitor General, The Advocate General for Sri. T. Durga Reddy, SC, Smt. S. Nanda, Advs. |
| Judges | Pinaki Chandra Ghose, C.J. and Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J. |
| Issue | Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963 - Sections 11, 20, 20(i), 38, 39, 39(2), 39(6); Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 |
| Judgement Date | February 11, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, C.J.
-
In these cases, the issue that arises for consideration is with regard to the procedure to be adopted for appointment of Vice-Chancellor to Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad. As such, all the cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of disposal of these cases, the facts in Writ Petition No. 34156 of 2012 may be noticed and the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the said writ petition. With the consent of the parties, we have taken up Writ Petition No. 34156 of 2012 also for hearing and disposal. Writ Petition No. 34156 of 2012 has been filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University in not following the UGC Regulations 2010/ICAR Model Act for Agricultural Universities as adopted by the University and G.O. Ms. No. 14, Higher Education (UE. II) Department, dated 20.2.2010 with regard to appointment of Vice-Chancellor to the University as arbitrary, illegal and Violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and for a direction to the Government and the University to make appointment of Vice-Chancellor in accordance with UGC Regulations 2010/ICAR Model Act.
-
By the impugned order passed in WPMP. No. 43447 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 34156 of 2012 respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the University, were directed to follow the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 14, dated 20.2.2010 for selecting and appointing a candidate as the Vice-Chancellor of Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad. As against the said direction, while the Government filed Writ Appeal No. 1522 of 2012, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University preferred Writ Appeal No. 1491 of 2012. Writ Appeal No. 13 of 2013 has also been filed against the same order of the learned Single Judge by one Dr. A. Padma Raju seeking leave of this Court, as he is not a party to the writ petition. PIL No. 387 of 2012 has been filed by M. Govind Reddy, a retired Professor of the University, seeking a direction to the Government and the University to make appointment of Vice-Chancellor in accordance with UGC Regulations, ICAR Model Act and G.O.Ms. No. 14, dated 20.2.2010.
-
It is mainly contended in the writ appeals that unless Statue 4 of the First Statutes and Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963 (for short, 'the APAU Act') are amended by the State Legislature, the University has to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and the First Statutes framed thereunder for appointment of Vice-Chancellor and cannot follow the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 14, dated 20.2.2010.
-
Learned Advocate General representing the State and also the University contended that the appointment of Vice-Chancellor is made as per Section 11 of the APAU Act and the procedure prescribed under Statute 4 of the First Statutes made under sub-section (1) of Section 39 and these are not amended by the State Legislature and, therefore, the Government and the University are bound to follow the procedure as prescribed under the said provisions. He submitted that the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the APAU Act and Statute 4 of the First Statutes does not provide for appointment of a search committee and a notification inviting applications for appointment of Vice-Chancellor. The procedure prescribed under the APAU Act cannot be said as non-transparent as contended by the petitioner as the Board of Management consists of very eminent people. He further submitted that Section 11 of the APAU Act and Statute 4 of the First Statutes govern the appointment of Vice-Chancellor and the UGC Regulations are not mandatory for the State Government and the University. G.O. Ms. No. 14 was mainly issued for implementation of the revised pay scales of the UGC and there is no reference to the Statutes of the University. The amendment of the Statutes needs specific prior approval by the Government and then only the University has to amend the same. Section 39 of the APAU Act stipulates the procedure for amending the statutes and without amending Statute 4 of the First Statutes as provided therein, the new procedure prescribed in G.O. Ms. No. 14 cannot be followed...
To continue reading
Request your trial