Job Aspirants Can't Insist On Retention Of Faculty Posts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds GO Reducing Posts At Sri Venkateswara University

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that candidates seeking appointment as Assistant Professors at Sri Venkateswara University–a state institution, have no vested right to insist upon the creation or retention of teaching posts to facilitate their participation in recruitment. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 112]

In doing so the court upheld the State's faculty rationalisation exercise in Sri Venkateswara University, the Court found no arbitrariness in the reduction of faculty positions and dismissed the challenge to the exercise.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao passed the order in a writ petition challenging the Government Orders implementing the faculty rationalisation exercise and the consequential recruitment notification issued by Sri Venkateswara University.

The Court observed:

"A further aspect that needs to be considered is whether petitioners would have a vested right to insist that certain positions should be made available for recruitment. This aspect can only be answered in negative.
Candidates such as petitioners do not have any vested right or interest to contend that a certain number of faculty positions should be available in university and that they should be permitted to participate in recruitment process for such faculty positions. The petitioners have not pleaded nor demonstrated, before this Court, any right or claim that petitioners would have for creation of a certain number of faculty positions."

The petitioners, who were qualified for appointment as Assistant Professors, challenged the Government Orders issued in September and October 2023 reducing faculty positions in various departments of Sri Venkateswara University, particularly the Geography Department.

They contended that the rationalisation exercise violated the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018, disregarded the prescribed faculty ratio and workload norms, and was undertaken solely to reduce teaching posts, thereby curtailing recruitment opportunities.

The State and the University (Respondents) submitted that the rationalisation exercise was carried out pursuant to recommendations of an Advisory Committee constituted by the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education and strictly adhered to applicable UGC guidelines and workload norms prescribed under the relevant Government Orders.

Accepting the respondents' stand, the High Court held that the explanation furnished in the University's counter-affidavit sufficiently established that the rationalisation process had been undertaken properly and did not warrant judicial interference.

It further held that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any legal right to seek creation or retention of a particular number of faculty posts. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Varampati Charan Kumar Reddy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 28842 of 2023

Counsel for the Petitioners: Kavitha Gottipati

Counsel for the Respondents: Yella Reddy Rajanala, S. Parineeta, J. Ugranarasimha, and Ramesh Babu Talluri.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 112