IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO : 1353 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 08/11/2006 in WP NO : 4775 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: J.V.Satyanarayana, s/o K.Ganga Rao, A.K.C.Junior College, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Director of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Andhra Kesari Centenary Junior College represented by its Correspondent Sri S.P.Venkata Raju, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4 Sri S.A.Mohiuddin, Andhra Kesari Centenary Junior College, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.VENKATA RANGADAS KANURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Division Bench of this Court made the following: (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO : 1353 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari ) The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 08-11-2006 passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No. 4775 of 2006 with a prayer to declare the action of the third respondent in not appointing the appellant as full additional charge Principal of AKC Junior College, Rajahmundry, East Godavari district, in pursuance of the Memo No.ADMN/1B-1/1699/2005, dated 08-12-2005 issued by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further declare that the appellant is entitled to be appointed as full additional charge Principal in place of 4th respondent in terms of the proceedings dated 08-12-2005 and the Govt.Memo.No.SPC-406/CE-II-1/98-1, dated 17-4-1999. 2. Heard Sri M. Panduranga Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Govt.Pleader for Higher Education representing the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri M.L. Ali, the learned counsel for the third and fourth respondent. 3. It is stated that the appellant made a representation on 16-8-2005 stating that he is the senior most Lecturer and he is eligible for appointment as full additional charge Principal. On the basis of the said representation, the Commissioner of Intermediate Education issued a Memo No.ADMN.IB.1/1699/2005 dated 08-12- 2005 directing the management to appoint the senior most Lecturer as Principal on full additional charge basis by following the instructions issued in the Govt.Memo.No.SPC-406/CE.II-1/98- 1, dated 17-4-1999. The learned single Judge after hearing both the parties and after considering the instructions issued by the Director of Higher Education in DIS.No.880/ICS-2/86, dated 07-3- 1986 to keep the senior most Lecturer as full additional charge of the post of Principal whenever the said post lies vacant. Subsequently, the Government issued Memo.No.SPC-406/CE-II- 1/98-1, dated 17-4-1999, wherein a reference is made to the instructions issued by the Government in Govt.Memo.No.89/CE-III- 1/95-1, dated 27-1-1996. From the said memo, it is clear that the Government issued instructions, which are later in point of time to the instructions issued by the Director of Higher Education to the effect that till regular promotions are made to the posts of Principals in the private aided colleges, one of the three senior most junior lecturers shall be kept in-charge of the vacant post of Principal. 4. In the present case on hand, after the vacancy arose, two other persons have expressed their un-willingness and next to them are the appellant and the fourth respondent in the seniority. The Government memo dated 17-4-1999 stipulates that only the senior most lecturer need not be appointed on full additional charge basis and the managements can consider and select one among the three senior most lecturers either for filling up the posts of Principal on regular basis or keeping them as full additional charge of the post of Principal till the same is filled up regularly. 5. In view of the fact that it is observed that the appointment of fourth respondent as full additional charge Principal is in relation to the Government memo dated 17-4-1999 and it cannot be said that the appointment of 4th respondent is contrary to directions issued in the memo dated 8-12-2005. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Govt.Pleader for official respondents as well as Sri M.L. Ali, the learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents, we are of the opinion that the third respondent appointed the fourth respondent in pursuance of the Government Memo dated 17-4-1999 but the same cannot be termed as contrary to the directions issued in the memo dated 8- 12-2005. It is also observed that a person cannot claim as a matter of right for appointment for the post of Principal or Principal on full additional charge basis of the college. 7. In the above circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD. 24-11-2008. I s L ......REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {RS}