No Vested Right to Insist on Faculty Vacancies: Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses Writ Against SV University Rationalisation

The Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected a challenge by aspiring Assistant Professors to the rationalisation of faculty positions in Sri Venkateswara University, finding no vested right to demand specific vacancies.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, comprising The Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, dismissed a writ petition filed by Varampati Charan Kumar Reddy and others — qualified candidates seeking appointment as Assistant Professors — who had challenged a series of government orders reducing faculty positions in Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati. The judgment, pronounced on 23 June 2026, holds that candidates such as the petitioners carry no vested right to contend that a certain number of faculty posts ought to be available in a university or that they must be permitted to participate in recruitment for those posts.

The Challenge Before the Division Bench

The petitioners were qualified to be appointed as Assistant Professors in the Geography department of Sri Venkateswara University. Their grievance arose from four government orders — G.O. Ms. No. 71 dated 01.09.2023, G.O. Ms. No. 91 dated 13.09.2023, G.O. Ms. No. 97 dated 21.09.2023, and G.O. Rt. 145 dated 11.10.2023 — which fixed, and in effect reduced, the number of faculty positions in departments across Sri Venkateswara University. A consequential recruitment notification dated 13.10.2023 was also challenged.

The principal complaint was that the rationalisation process was arbitrary and had been conducted solely to reduce teaching positions, not because any genuine reduction was warranted. By the time the matter was heard, the recruitment notification had been withdrawn, rendering that specific challenge infructuous. The surviving question before the bench was whether the underlying rationalisation process itself was valid.

A Longer History of Faculty Rationalisation in Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh had first initiated rationalisation of faculty positions across its universities in 2017. That process led to reduced faculty positions and fresh recruitment notifications, both of which were challenged in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 23770 of 2017 and batch.

During the hearing of that batch, the respondent authorities informed the Court that the 2017 rationalisation required reconsideration and that a fresh exercise would be undertaken. A learned Single Judge disposed of those petitions on 05.03.2021 with certain directions. Writ appeals filed by aggrieved candidates — W.A. No. 214 of 2021 and batch — were dismissed on 11.07.2023. S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15975 of 2023 and batch, filed against those orders, remain pending before the Supreme Court of India.

In the current round, the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education constituted an Advisory Committee on 21.12.2021 to rationalise faculty positions in State universities. That Committee made recommendations which were accepted and brought into effect, leading to a further reduction in positions, including in Sri Venkateswara University.

The UGC Regulations Argument

Ms. Kavitha Gottipati, appearing for the petitioners, took the bench through correspondence and reports connected to the impugned rationalisation. Her central legal argument was that the process violated the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 2018.

She drew the bench's attention to Regulation 12.1 of those regulations, which reads: “Teaching posts in universities, as far as feasible, may be created in pyramidal order” — prescribing a ratio of one Professor to two Associate Professors to four Assistant Professors per department. She argued this ratio was not followed when determining optimum faculty positions.

Beyond the ratio point, several other deficiencies were alleged. The selection and merging of departments, she contended, was done without uniformity. Workload calculations failed to account for Ph.D. students requiring faculty guidance. The requirement of faculty for distance courses under UGC regulations was overlooked. The self-financed course initiated under G.O. Ms. No. 46 dated 26.07.2017 was also not factored in. Together, she argued, these omissions produced a lopsided evaluation of required faculty positions, directly affecting the petitioners by eliminating posts in the Geography department that would otherwise have been open to them.

The University's Counter

The Registrar of Sri Venkateswara University filed a counter affidavit setting out the methodology followed for computing the number of teaching positions required. The university's position was that it had strictly implemented UGC guidelines dated 07.11.2022 without deviation.

On workload, the counter affidavit referred to G.O. Ms. No. 14 dated 13.02.2019, which stipulated a teaching workload of 16 hours per week for Assistant Professors, along with 2 hours per day for student mentoring and 2 hours per day for research. The university contended that these stipulations left adequate time for faculty at all levels to discharge their duties, and that the resulting position count in the Geography department was therefore justified.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, writing for the bench, found that the petitioners had not made out any case warranting interference. The explanation in the university's counter affidavit was accepted as sufficiently establishing that the rationalisation had been undertaken properly.

The bench then addressed a more fundamental question: whether the petitioners had any right to insist that certain faculty positions be made available for recruitment in the first place. The answer was unambiguous. Candidates who are merely qualified for a post, but have not been appointed, do not acquire any vested right or interest to demand that a university maintain a particular number of positions. The petitioners had neither pleaded nor demonstrated before the Court any right or claim to the creation of a specific number of faculty posts.

This reasoning operates independently of the challenge to the rationalisation process itself. Even if a court were to find procedural irregularities in how positions are counted, a candidate outside the employment relationship cannot translate that into a personal right to have vacancies generated for their benefit. The bench's holding on the absence of vested rights thus forms a complete answer to the petition, separate from its acceptance of the university's methodology.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed W.P. No. 28842 of 2023, finding no merits in the writ petition. No order as to costs was made. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were directed to stand closed.