IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.12772 OF 2011 BETWEEN: Yellinedi Pushapa Reni W/o. Y. Sagareswara Rao …. Petitioner AND Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rep. by its Registrar, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad and another …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.12772 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in non consideration of the length of service of the petitioner as experience on par with Research Associates/Junior Scientists and others, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to give preferential treatment on account of the length of service as Agricultural Officer for the selection to the post of Assistant/Professor vide Advertisement No.4/Rc.2010, dated 10-12-2010. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is working as Agricultural Officer since 1999 at the Regional Agricultural Administration, Guntur, which is under the control of the 1st respondent. She is a Graduate in Agriculture. The 1s t respondent granted permission to the petitioner to pursue M.Sc. (Agriculture) in the major field of Genetics & Plant breeding under the service quota for the academic year 2006-2007 and she completed the same. She also qualified in the National Eligibility Test (NET) in April 2009. The 1st respondent issued advertisement No.4/Rc/2010 on 10- 12-2010 inviting applications for the posts of Associate / Assistant Professors. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor cadre is a candidate should be qualified in the NET, besides Master’s Degree and Bachelor’s Degree in Agriculture. The 1st respondent intended to give preference to the experience in research associates/junior scientists, but the advertisement remains silent with regard to experience as Agricultural Officer. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is working as an Agricultural Officer from 1999, that the length of service, rendered by her, has not been considered by the respondents, but the respondents are considering the cases of fresh candidates, who are working on contract basis and for that purpose the petitioner made a representation on 13-03-2009 and the same has not been considered. 4. The case of the petitioner has to be considered in accordance with the conditions laid down in the advertisement No.4/RC/2010, dated 10-12-2010. Therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken by the 1st respondent in accordance with law. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and qualified in pursuance of the notification, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J July 07, 2011. KTL