Prof. K. Venugopal Reddy v. The State Of A.P.,

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 10.10.2018 Between:

Prof. K.Venugopal Reddy, s/o. K.P.Narsi Reddy, Aged 66 years, occu: Professor in Chemistry (contract), IIIT RK Valley, RGUKT-AP, Indupulapaya, Vempalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa district and others. .....Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Higher (Technical) Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur district and others. .....Respondents The Court made the following:

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO ORDER:

Petitioners retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Before retirement, they were engaged by the University as Visiting Professors in the year 2011 by awarding contract of appointment, valid for each academic year. In the said manner, the contract was renewed and renewed contract was valid till 30.06.2018. While so, on 28.02.2018, orders were issued holding that they were relieved from the duties of Visiting Professors w.e.f. 28.02.2018. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed.

2.

This Court by order dated 06.03.2018 suspended the proceedings dated 28.02.2018 primarily on the ground the order of termination though appears to be innocuous if the attendant circumstances indicate that the termination is founded on the alleged inefficiency or misconduct renders the termination as penal in nature. Pursuant to the interim order, petitioners continued as Visiting Faculty.

3.

Admittedly, the term of contract expired on 30.06.2018. Order of dispensing the services were challenged in the writ petition, as amounting to stigma, as such termination was resorted to even before the period of term of contract was over. As things stand now, the period of contract itself has expired and, therefore, the order impugned works itself out and the cause in the writ petition does not survive. However, at this stage, learned counsel for petitioners sought to contend that as termination is challenged

on the ground that it is stigmatic it may still carry adverse consequence in future employment. Having regard to said apprehension, Court makes it clear that the order itself worked out on account of completion of term of contract earlier granted and that such order shall not be used as the basis against petitioners while considering their request for renewal of contract. It is open to the petitioners to work out their remedies, if no renewal is granted. It is also open to the University to consider the issue of renewing the contract of petitioners without reference to notice of termination dated 28.2.2018 impugned in the writ petition. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand dismissed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 10.10.2018 kkm

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

Date: 10.10.2018 kkm