HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5720 of 2010 Date: 11.03.2010 Between: G.V.Subramanyam. … Petitioner And The Director, RIMS, Kadapa & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5720 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the Notification issued by Rajeev Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Putlampalli, Kadapa, inviting applications for filling up the post of Counsellor. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, he was appointed as a Counsellor in Rajeev Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, and when his services were terminated on certain allegations, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26110 of 2008, which is pending before this Court. It is submitted that in view of pendency of the said writ petition, respondents cannot fill up the vacancy of Counsellor. 3. Though a copy of the earlier appointment order is not filed in the material papers, but during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for petitioner has shown a copy of such appointment order. A perusal of the said order shows that the petitioner was earlier appointed on temporary basis. But thereafter, his services were terminated on certain allegations, by an order, dated 20th November 2008. Though the petitioner has challenged the said termination order in W.P.No.26110 of 2008, but, no interim orders are passed in the said writ petition. 4. In view of termination of petitioner from service, there arose a vacancy of Counsellor, and as there was a requirement of Counsellor, it is always open for the respondents, to issue Notification inviting applications for filling up the said post. Merely because the writ petition filed by the petitioner, questioning the termination orders, is pending consideration, the same will not prevent the respondents from inviting applications for filling up the said vacancy. As no other plea is taken in the writ petition, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned notification. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th March 2010 ajr