JUDGMENT
1. Writ petition No.15283 of 1990 was filed by the petitioner apprehending that her services will be terminated as Junior Lecturer in Economics in Sri Prasanna Gajanana Junior College for Girls, Hyderabad which is under private management and which was admitted to grant-in-aid on the ground that she has not been allotted by the College Service Commission and sought for a writ of Mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise her
services and to absorb her on regular basis with all consequential benefits as she was working in that capacity since 5-8-1985 on ad hoc basis. She also filed WP MP No. 19629 of 1990 to direct the respondents to continue her services as Junior Lecturer in the College on the same terms and conditions till she is absorbed on regular basis.
2. This Court while ordering notice before admission in the writ petition directed that this writ petition be posted along with Writ Petition Nos.14313 of 1990 and 15320 of 1990 on 21-11-1990 by order dated 7-11-1990 and ordered notice in the WP MPs. Thereafter the writ petition underwent several adjournments and the same was admitted only on 26-6-1992 and no interim orders were passed by this Court directing her continuance in the post. The management seemed to have terminated her services on 19-11 -1990 to accommodate Smt. Latha Rani and thereafter the petitioner seemed to have filed WP MP No….. seeking permission
of the Court to implead the said Latharani as party respondent to the proceedings. But nearly for 4 years the application could not be posted before the Court on the ground that the same was not traced out in the Registry. In those circumstances the petitioner seemed to have filed fresh writ petition No.3SSS of 1994 on the file of this Court seeking the same relief. The only change in this writ petition was that Smt. Latha Rani was impleaded as 5th respondent. This writ petition was admitted on 9-3-1994. Subsequently the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission was also impleaded as party respondent by filing WP MP No.2282 of 1996 by virtue of the orders of this Court dated 11-4-1996. I have taken up both the cases for final hearing on 23-7-1998 and the matter underwent several adjournments to find out whether both the candidates can be accommodated in the College. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is sufficient work load to accommodate both the petitioner and the respondent and the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that there is no work
load to accommodate two Lecturers. In those circumstances i appointed an Advocate-Commissioner by order dated 5-8-1998. As per the report filed by the Advocate-Commissioner it is seen that in the light of the directions given by the Board of Intermediate Education, issued proceedings in RC No.967/ E2-1/98-99, dated 14-7-1998 increasing the student strength in each Section to 110, the possibility of accommodating another Lecturer became bleak, In the above circumstances I have taken up further hearing of the matter and during the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioner started contending that the procedure followed by the 6th respondent i.e., the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission in selecting the candidates for appointment is vitiated on various grounds apart from the fact that the 6th respondent allotted 5th respondent to the College on the verge of excluding the private College from the purview of the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission by amending Act 25 of 1990. He also brought to my notice that in the entire State no Lecturer allotted by the College Service Commission was absorbed in any of the private Colleges except this candidate even in this College. In those circumstances I directed the College Service Commission to file its counter by order dated 20-8-1998. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education was instructed by the 6th respondent to represent their case also before this Court. The learned GP has taken objection for raising these grounds without proper pleadings and in fact the petitioner except challenging the action of the College in terminating her services, she did not even question the allotment of the 5th respondent to the 3rd respondent College. In those circumstances I gave permission to the petitioner to file a better affidavit and also to seek modification of the prayer in the writ petition. Accordingly the petitioner filed WP MP No.32558 of 1998 seeking permission of the Court to file better affidavit raising all the grounds that are necessary to adjudicate the dispute and the same was ordered. Thereafter the 6th respondent filed its counter.
3. From the arguments advanced on both sides the following issues emerged for adjudication:
(1) Whether the notification issued by the 6th respondent is in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of 1985 of the A.P. College Service Commission Act?
(2) Whether the action of the 6th respondent in treating all the private Colleges (both Degree and Intermediate) in a zone as one unit for the purpose of following of rule of reservation is constitutionally permissible?
(3) Whether the action of the 6th respondent in allotting the 5th respondent to the 3rd respondent College at a time when the Government is seriously contemplating tp exclude private Colleges from the purview of the College Service Commission and insisting the management to admit her to duty while all other private Colleges in the State refused to admit the candidates allotted by the Commission?
(4) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in WP No.3888 of 1994?
4. The facts of this case are that the petitioner took her Post-Graduate Degree in Economics from the Osmania University and she secured 64.2% marks in the said examination in 1983. By that time the Governmental authorities have given instructions to all the Private Colleges in the State not to resort to regular appointments as the Government is contemplating to constitute the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission for recruitment of the Lecturers both for Government as well as Private Colleges. In those circumstances all the Private Colleges in the State have resorted to temporary appointments. On a previous occasion I dealt with this subject elaborately in Writ Petition No.14823 of 1995 dated 9-7-1998.
5. In the prevailing circumstances the petitioner seemed to have been appointed by the college on 5-8-1985 as Junior Lecturer on ad hoc basis along with others and all the temporary staff were working un-interuptedly in the College. The Andhra Pradesh Service Commission Act (Act.13 of 1985) came into force from 1-10-1985 and thereafter the Secretary to Commission seemed to have addressed letters to all the private Colleges in the State in his letter dated 28-6-1986 to notify the vacant posts in the respective Colleges and as per the information furnished by the Commission, only 27 Colleges respondended to its letter including the 3rd respondent College. The Correspondent of the College by his letter dated 15-7-1986 furnished the information in the annexure. As per the letter the following posts of Junior Lecturers were shown as vacant:
Subject
Number of Posts
Reserved for
1.
Botany
1
SC
2.
Commerce
1
ST
3.
Economics
1
BC’A’
4.
Mathematics
1
SC’C’
6. On the basis of the information received, the Commission seemed to have issued notification No.1 of 1987 dated 28-6-1987 calling for applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the vacancies in various disciplines both in Degree as well as Junior Colleges. In this notification 29 posts of Junior Lecturers in Economics were notified for the Junior Colleges under private management. Out of these posts 10 posts are backlog posts reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates five posts in each category. The remaining 19 posts have to be filled in by the general recruitment. Clause-3 of this notification simply states that the recruitment shall be made to these posts following the rule of reservation as envisaged in Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State Subordinate Service Rules. Except this nothing was stated in the notification as to how the rule of reservation is going to be implemented in various notified Junior Colleges under private managements which are treated as
different and distinct units for the purpose of seniority promotion, retrenchment, etc. The last date for the receipt of the applications was fixed as 31-7-1987 by making it very clear that the applications received after that date will be summarily rejected. This notification was published in the ‘Andhra Jyothi’ Telugu daily newspaper, dated 28-6-1987. But this notification was published in the Gazette only on 12-10-1987 i.e., after the expiry of the date fixed for receipt of the applications. Though examinations were conducted in 1987, the Commission could not allot the candidates till the end of 1990. From the record it is seen that the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.36 in Rc No.11/B1/86, dated 28-2-1990 treating both Degree and Junior Colleges under private managements in each zone as one unit for the purpose of following the rule of reservation. On the basis of this GO, the managements of private Colleges were directed to inform the commission how the vacant posts in their Colleges have to be filled up. In the changed circumstances the College seemed to have sent revised requisition on 22-9-1990. As per this letter the following posts have to be filled up in the following manner:
Subject
Reserved for
1.
Botany
ST
2.
Commerce
BC’B’
3.
Economics
BC’A’
4.
English
PH.
Thereafter on 24-9-1990 the Director of Intermediate Education seemed to have requested all the private managements to confirm the vacancy position in their Colleges and as per the information furnished by the 6th respondent only 13 Colleges including the 3rd respondent College confirmed the vacancy position and as per the information received by the Commission 14 posts of Junior Lecturers in Economics have to be filled up and in the counter it stated that the Commission could allot only 13 candidates and one post of Junior Lecturer in Zone-VII could not be filled up as qualified Scheduled Caste candidate was
not available. Ultimately on 20-10-1990 the 6th respondent allotted the 5th respondent to the 3rd respondent College who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category for appointment to the post of Junior Lecturer in Economics. On 26-10-1990 the management sought for a clarification how an SC candidate can be accommodated when the post is earmarked for BC’A’ candidate. The Commission in it letter in Rc No.387/E1/90, Edn, dated 9-11-1990 informed the management that in the light of G.O. Ms. No.36, Edn, dated 28-2-1990 the reservations were worked out zone-wise for private Colleges and the posts in the 3rd respondent College have to be filled up with SC candidate. Stating so, the Commission directed the College to appoint the 5th respondent. Ultimately the management gave posting orders to the 5th respondent on 15-11-1990 and she reported to duty on 19-11-1990. Consequently the petitioner was stopped from attending to duty without giving any termination orders. With the result she is now on the streets.
7. To complete the narration of facts I may also refer to the subsequent events. Amendment Act 25 of 1990 came into force on 6-12-1990 whereunder the private Colleges were taken out, from the purview of the College Service Commission. To a specific querry raised by this Court as to how the Commission allotted the candidate to the respondent College when the Government was actively contemplating to exclude Private Colleges from the purview of the Commission. The Government relied on the saving clause contained in Act 25 of 1990 to the following effect:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Principal Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission (Amendment) Act, 1990, the College Service Commission shall be competent to process the selection of teachers to Private Colleges whether receiving aid from the Government or not and complete the process of such selection in respect of the vacancies in such Colleges already notified for recruitment prior to the commencement of this Act”.
8. How far the action of the respondent can be justified will be considered latter. As stated supra, none of the private Colleges admitted even a single candidate sponsored by the Commission in the entire State and as the Part-time/Adhoc Lecturers are working for several years, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.302, dated 23-8-1995 to regularise the services of all the temporary Lecturers working in private Colleges subject to the fulfilment of the conditions specified therein. As such the services of the temporary Lecturers working in private Colleges through out the State were regularised except the petitioner who worked for nearly 5 years in the 3rd respondent College on the ground that she was not in service on the day when the G.O. was issued though she fulfilled all other qualifications mentioned in the said G.O. When the services of some of the temporary Lecturers were not regularised under G.O. Ms. No.302, the Government was constrained to issue G.O. Ms. No.328, dated 15-10-1997 by relaxing certain earlier guidelines and almost all the temporary Lecturers working in the State could get their services regularised. The 3rd respondent College made it very clear that the sendees of the petitioner have to be terminated only to accommodate the 5th respondent on her allotment for appointment as Junior Lecturer in Economics to this College but not otherwise and it will abide by any orders that are going to be passed by this Court subject to the condition that the College can accommodate only one Lecturer.
9. In the light of the above factual background it is to be seen whether the action of the 6th respondent Commission can be sustained in law. I will take up the issues that have emerged for consideration as indicated above one after the other.
Issue No. 1 :
10. In Section 2(e) of Act 13 of 1985 as it originally stood, “notification” means a notification published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and the word “notified” shall be construed accordingly.
11. Under Section 9 every College is bound to communicate to the Commission the vacancies existing at the commencement of this Act and estimated total number of vacancies in the College and such communication shall be sent in respect of all such existing and estimated total number of various vacancies and which are likely to occur during the un-expired portion of the year, within one month after such commencement and in respect of all vacancies that are likely to occur during each subsequent year within one month after the commencement of such year.
12. Under Section 12 appointments to all the vacancies required to be communicated to the Commission under Section 9 shall, on or from such date as the Commission may notify in respect of each College, be made by such College only on the recommendation of the Commission.
13. From the above clause it is seen that when once the requisition is received from the respective Colleges, a duly is cast on the Commission to notify’ the vacancies as per the information furnished by that College in respect of each College. But as referred to supra, the notification No.1 of 1987, dated 18-6-1987 simply states that 29 Junior lecturers in Economics in the Colleges under the Private Management have to be filled up, out of which 10 are backlog vacancies reserved for SCs and STs. The last date fixed for receipt of the applications from the eligible candidates was 31-7-1987, But the notification as contemplated under the Act is ‘a notification published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette’. In this case though the notification was published in the newspapers before the expiry of the last date, in the Gazette it was published only on 10-12-1987 i.e., long after the expiry of the last date for receipt of the applications. Secondly in the notification details were not given College-wise except giving the total number of vacancies that are going to be filled up. Further, as on 18-6-1987, the date on which the notification was issued by the Commission, each College under private
management is considered as separate unit for the purpose of appointment, promotion, retrenchment, etc., and even if number of Colleges arc under the same management, each College has to be treated as a Unit as per the Andhra Pradesh Education Act and the rules that are made thereunder. That being the legal position, the Commission is expected to notify the vacancies and that are going to be filled up by following Rule 22 of the General Rules and all the three prerequisite to constitute a valid notification arc lacking in this notification. Accordingly the notification issued by the Commission cannot be sustained in law.
Issue Nos. 2 and 3:
14. As stated supra, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.36, Education, dated 28-2-1990 treating all the private Colleges both Degree and Junior Colleges in each of the zones as one unit for the purpose of implementing the rule of reservation. Firstly, the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the posts of Lecturers in Degree and Junior Colleges are different and distinct and the action of the 6th respondent Commission in clubbing both Junior & Degree Colleges for the implementation of the rule of reservation runs
counter to the spirit of the rule of reservation to be applied in making appointments to these posts. Secondly the notification itself should specify the procedure of filling up the vacant posts by following the rule of reservation. In the instant case except stating that 29 posts of Junior Lecturers in. Economics will be filled up, no other particulars arc given. Even assuming for a moment that the action of the Commission can be justified, the notification did not specify the number of vacancies that arc available zone-wise and how the appointments are going to be made by following the rule of reservation. From the facts of this case it is seen that while the management was contending that the post of Junior Lecturer in Economics has to be filled up with BC’A’ candidate, even after G.O. Ms. No.36 dated 28-2-1990 the Commission started contending in its letter dated 9-11-1990 that the Commission observed “Communal Reservations for appointments” in Degree and Junior Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh as per the above said G-O. But from the information furnished it is seen that in zone-7 only 3 Colleges notified the vacancies and how they were filled up. It is better to extract the statement given by the Commission itself.
Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission, Hyderabad
List of Candidates Selected for Recruitment to the Post of Junior Lecturer in APPSC, 1987
S. No.
Order of merit
Name of the candidate
Date of birth
Community
Qualifications
Address
Remarks
Zone VII
RBS Banseelal Junior College Hyderabad
(1)
Physics : XX
XX
XX
SC
XX
SC not available
Â
(2)
Botany: J.5050134
D. Kasi Viswanath
9-7-60
OC
M.Sc.
H.No. 1-9-295-28/1,
Achutarcddy Street, Vidhyanagar, Hyd – 500044
Â
(3)
Economics : J.2110311
P. Ravindra Nath
1-6-61
OC
M.A.
S/o. P. Satyanrayana,
Tadepalli (Post) Md)., Gunlur District, Pin 522501.
Â
Â
(Two candidates only)
Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission, Hyderabad
List of
Candidates Selected for Recruitment to the Post of Junior Lecturer in APESS, 1987
S. No.
Order of merit
Name of the candidate
Date of birth
Community
Qualifications
Address
Remarks
Zone – VII
Sri Prasanna Gnianana Girls Junior Colleee. Hyderabad
(1)
Commerce :
XX
XX
SC
XX
SC not not available
Â
(2)
Economics : J.15110249
Dhara Latharani
30-4-64
SC
M.A.
Sapoypet, Ramakrishna Puram Post, Chirala,
Prakasain Dist. 523155
Â
Â
(One candidate only)
Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission, Hyderabad
List of Candidates Selected for Recruitment to the Post of Junior Lecturer in APESS, 1987
S. No.
Order of merit
Name of the candidate
Date of birth
Community
Qualifications
Address
Remarks
Zone – VII
Kasturba Junior College, Secunderabad
(1)
English : XX
XX
XX
SC
XX
SC not available
Â
(2)
J.5020273
R. Pralima
15-10-60
OC
M.A.
8-2-703,
R.No.12, Banjara Hills,
Hyd. Hyd. 500034.
Â
(3)
Physics
XX
XX
SC
XX
SC not available
Â
(4)
Chemistry : J.50S0087
B.
Davidraju
26-6-60
SC
M.Sc.
H.No. 12-11 -1240,
Boudhanagar, Varasiguda, Sec bad – 361
Â
(5)
Commerce : J.1100442
R. Sureshkumar
1-7-65
OC
M.Com.
S/o. R.Tirupatrirao ZPHS Headmaster, Balijipet Post &
Maw Vizianagaram Dt.
Â
(6)
Economics : XX
XX
XX
SC
XX
SC not available.
Â
Â
(Three candidates only)
From the above table it is seen that while 4 candidates were selected in the open competition, 2 candidates were selected in the SC category, leaving 5 posts un-filled on the ground that no SC candidates are available and not even a single BC candidate was selected for any of these posts. This is how the Commission tried to implement reservations even under the illegal orders issued by the Government. I have no hesitation to hold that the Government is not empowered to treat all the private Colleges in a zone more so both the Degree and Junior Colleges which have nothing to do with each other and even the educational qualifications differ from each other and which are under different managements as one Unit for observing rule of reservation without reference to faculty such an action clearly opposes Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the action of the Government is nothing but illegal and arbitrary. 1 am fortified in my view by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma v. the Chancellor, Nagapur University, .
15. From the information extracted above, even under these illegal orders, the Commission did not work out the reservations in a manner known to law and the way in which the Commission selected the candidates runs counter to the roster envisaged under Rule 22 of the General Rules.
16. It is also seen that as per the allotment made by the Commission as many as three candidates do not belong to this zone. When once the Presidential Order is made applicable, the candidate of that zone alone has to be considered for appointment. Hence it is not known how the Commission could allow a candidate from other zone to this zone. In one word the procedure followed by the Commission as noticed by this Court is not in accordance with law from the beginning to the end and the same is vitiated by several illegalities and irregularities which cannot be cured. Hence the action of the 6th respondent Commission in allotting the 5th respondent to
the 3rd respondent College cannot be sustained in the light of the above illegalities and also the fact that no other Private College admitted any candidate sponsored by the Commission. Further the 6th Respondent-Commissioner did not allot all the candidates that are required to fill up the posts notified even by this College. Why the 6th Respondent allotted only the 5th Respondent to be appointed as Junior Lecturer in Economics leaving the other notified vacancies. No reasons are forthcoming to satisfy this action of the 6th respondent. Further the 6th respondent-Commission under the guise of the saving clause contained in Article 25 of 1990 allotted candidates to some of the private colleges for appointment. But except the admission of 5th respondent in the 3rd Respondent-College no other candidate sponsored by the Commission were admitted even by those colleges which have sent requisition to the Commission. Nextly while thousands of private colleges are functioning in the State only 27 colleges responded to the 1st letter of the Commission and their number dwindled to 13 while sending confirmation in 1990. Ultimately none of the colleges admitted any of the candidates sponsored by the Commission, Hence the action of the Commission in insisting the 3rd respondent-college for appointment of 5th respondent having accommodated all other selected candidates in Government College is perse illegal. Hence I have no option except setting at naught the allotment of the 5th respondent by the 6m respondent-Commission to the 3rd respondent-College for appointment as Junior Lecturer in Economics and accordingly it is set aside. These two issues are answered accordingly.
Issue No.4:.
17. In the light of the view taken by me with regard to the action of the 6th respondent, the next question that arises for consideration would be the relief that can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.
18. As stated supra, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 5-8-1985 and
had the 5th respondent been not allotted to the 3rd respondent-College, she would have continued in the service and would have availed of the benefit of the scheme enunciated by the Government either under G.O. Ms. No.302 or G.O. Ms. No.327. It is only because of the wrong done by the 6th respondent Commission, she has to lose her job for no fault of her. Further, as noticed above, the 5th respondent was allotted on the verge of excluding private Colleges from the purview of the service Commission. It is needless to observe that the process for exclusion of private Colleges might have started much earlier to the allotment of the 5th respondent to the College in question. The Commission knowing fully well that the Government is likely to exclude this private College, hastely proceeded in allotting candidates to various private Colleges. The respondent authorities tried to justify their action under the guise of the saving clause contained in the Amendment Act 25 of 1990 which was already extracted above. Though the 6th respondent is right in contending that its action is a bona fide one, it should be kept in mind that no private College admitted any candidate sponsored by the Commission for appointment. In fact, in this 3rd respondent College itself the Correspondent notified four posts of Junior Lecturers in Botany, Commerce, Economics and Mathematics and subsequently in the year 1990 instead of Mathematics, Junior Lecturer in English was shown. But the Commission appointed only the 5th respondent and no attempt was made to fill up the other vacancies. The 6th respondent Commission has not given any reasons why it did not sponsor the candidates for appointment to these posts. While temporary and ad hoc Lecturers working in private Colleges all over the State were benefitted by the orders issued by the Government vide G.O. Ms. No.302 and 327, the petitioner alone was subjected to hostile discrimination and the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India Further, even before her services were terminated, she came to know that the 5th respondent was allotted by the Commission to the College, she
rushed to this Court and filed writ petition No. 15283 of 1990- Had the Court granted interim orders, perhaps the petitioner would not have been placed in such a miserable position as she is now. Be that as it may, she was pursuing the legal remedy available to her continuously but for various reasons the writ petitions filed by her could not come up for hearing all these years. Hence I cannot even un-suit her on the ground of laches and even on the ground that settled matters cannot be un-settled. Hence I cannot refuse to grant relief in the light of the mistakes committed by the Commission from the date of issuance of the notification till the allotment of 5th respondent to the 3rd respondent College.
19. Accordingly a direction is given to the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of her services as Junior Lecturer in Economics either under G.O. Ms. No.302 or G.O. Ms. No.328, if necessary by giving relaxation to the period of service one has to put in to get his/her services regularised by treating tire absence as duty period. She is also entitled for restoration of her seniority in the College as her services were not terminated in a manner known to law. In other words the period of absence i.e., from 19-11-1990 till the date of her re-appointment, she shall be treated as on duty for the purpose of seniority and other benefits but without backwages. The Commissioner of Education shall pass orders within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which, a serious view will be taken in the matter.
20. One more issue remained unanswered i.e., the fate of the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent joined duty in the 3rd respondent-College pursuant to the appo intment orders given by the 3rd respondent-College consequent upon her allotment by the 6th respondent and she was continuously working in the post from that date till this date. If she is asked to leave the services at this stage, she has to suffer for no
fault of her. Further, the 6th respondent Commission’s notification No.1 of 1987 is based on the vacancy’ position given by 27 Colleges all over the State but none of the private Colleges have admitted the candidates that were allotted by the Commission. As a consequence all the candidates selected for appointment in private Colleges were absorbed in the Government Colleges and such a benefit cannot be denied to the 5th respondent though her appointment in the 3rd respondent-College is found to be not in order as she became a victim of the circumstances.
21. Hence a direction is given to the 6th respondent Commission to immediately withdraw the 5th respondent from the 3rd respondent College and absorb her in any of the Government Colleges where there is a vacancy in VIIth Zone. Though the presidential order is applicable to these posts, 20% of the posts have to be filled in by non-local candidates i.e., from outside the zone. Keeping all these factors in mind, the Service Commission shall see that she is accommodated in any of the Government Colleges in the Vllth zone preferably. I am fortified in my view that by a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Dr. Meera Massey v. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra, 1988 (3) SCC 88, their Lordships of the Supreme Court having found fault with the Himachal Pradesh University in appointing Research Associates/Evaluators, a post which is not available either under the statutes or the ordinance of the University, allowed the incumbents to continue in service. The relevant para is as hereunder:
“However, we find that all the appellants have been regularised as teachers and appointed as Lecturers approved by the Executive Council since 1986 more than 11 years back. Respondent 1 Dr. Mehrotra very fairly states he has nothing against these appellants. They are all competent teachers fully qualified to be appointed as such. We feel setting aside and disturbing their appointments now would create great turmoil and would affect
the teaching in the University and, in turn, the students at large and even the appellants also, who in the hope continued for long. We feel it would not be appropriate on the facts and circumstances of this case to set aside their appointments as teachers.”
22. The writ petitions arc accordingly allowed. No costs.