IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19749 of 2006 Between: V. Sarvani, W/o. V.S.S. Pavan Kumar, R/o. 104, Archana Apartments, Golkonda X Road, Hyderabad-20. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Registrar, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendra Nagar, R.R.District. 2 Mrs. Geetha Sampath, W/o. Mr. Sampath Kumar, I.A.S., C/o. Mr. Sampath Kumar, I.A.S., Director, national Institute of Rural Development, Rajendra Nagar, R.R.District. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or Orders, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of 1st respondent in not selecting petitioners to the post of Assistant Professor (Clothing & Textiles) which is created vide notification No.3/RC/2006 dt. 17.02.2006 used by the 1st respondents University; as amounting to highly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms.G.VEENA Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr.B.SIVA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr.N.SUBBA REDDY,Sr.Advocate The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19749 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is field seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not selecting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Textiles and Clothing) as per Notification No.3/RC/2006, dated 17-2-2006 of the 1st respondent-University as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner, as per the notification issued by the 1st respondent-University dated 17-2-2006 for appointment to various cadre posts to be filled in by the 1st respondent-University, she applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Textiles and Clothing). It is the case of the petitioner that she is a meritorious student and obtained 83.1% marks in Home Science from A.P. Agriculture University. She had also obtained P.G. Degree in M.Sc. (Textiles and Clothing) from M.S.University of Baroda with 69% marks and she is also doing her Ph.D. and only two candidates attended the interview i.e. herself and the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, after the interview was conducted, she was assured that she would be selected, since the 2nd respondent could not qualify herself in National Eligibility Test (NET). Further, the 2nd respondent, when happened to interact with each other on the date of interview, categorically informed her that she is only qualified in the State Eligibility Test, but not NET and she is fully qualified and eligible for being appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Textiles and Clothing). However, to her surprise, the petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent was selected and she is going to take over charge on 25-9-2006; as such, she filed the present Writ Petition. It is asserted by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent, who happens to be the wife of an Officer holding the post of Director of National Institute located at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad exerted pressure on the selection committee and thus though she is not qualified, she was selected. Respondent No.1 filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner was not empanelled by the selection committee in view of her poor performance. The selection of the 2nd respondent was subject to clarification to be received from the ICAR/UGC/Government of Andhra Pradesh regarding equivalence of NET conducted by A.P. College Service Commission to that of NET conducted by ICAR/UGC/CSIR. The University has addressed letters to ICAR and UGC for clarification in the matter and they were awaiting the replies. However, now it is asserted that the University has got clarification, in this regard, holding that the NET conducted by the A.P. College Service Commission is equivalent to that of NET conducted by ICAR/UGC/CSIR. Further, the allegation that injustice was done to the petitioner under the influence of 2nd respondent, who happens to be the wife of an IAS Officer was strongly refuted. It is further stated that the petitioner was not selected and was not empanelled as she was not eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor in Apparel and Textiles. Though no counter is filed, Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, placed before the Court the communication received by the Registrar, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad from the Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission dated 1-11-2006 whereunder it is stated that as per the records of erstwhile A.P. College Service Commission available with APPSC, the 2nd respondent is qualified at NET held in August 1996 with Regn.No.122004 in the subject ‘Home Science”. Further, he has also placed before the Court the NET certificate (Master’s Level) issued by the A.P. College Service Commission bearing Regn.No.122004 showing that the 2nd respondent passed National Eligibility Test for Lecturership held in August,1996. Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the appointment of the 2nd respondent. Casually, the petitioner made certain allegations against the 2nd respondent; therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. At the outset, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not challenged the appointment of the 2nd respondent, though made several allegations against her. Further, in the writ affidavit, the petitioner did not assert that the 2nd respondent is not qualified also for the reason that she never studied Telugu as one of the subjects in SSC as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the University was not in a position to reply the same. As such, this aspect need not be gone into. Insofar as possessing NET certificate issued by A.P. College Service Commission is concerned, the Secretary, APPSC has clarified that UGC (NET) has given accreditation of test for eligibility for Lecturership to erstwhile College Service Commission. The letter dated (Nil), February,1996 shows that the UGC(NET) has given accreditation for the A.P.College Service Commission for conducting NET in 1994 and also for future tests to be held during 1995-97 and certain recommendations were made; thus showing that NET conducted by A.P. College Service Commission is equivalent to that of NET conducted by UGC. Be that as it may, petitioner, as per the counter filed by the 1st respondent-University, has not come up for selection, since her performance was poor. Petitioner failed to prove the allegation that the 2nd respondent has not passed NET. Though some allegations are made against the 2nd respondent, that itself does not mean that the petitioner has challenged the appointment of the 2nd respondent. The prayer, as couched, is very clear. The petitioner was interested in projecting her case that though she was fully eligible and qualified, she was not selected. For this, the simple answer of the University is that since the performance of the petitioner was poor, she was not selected. Once the petitioner is not selected, she has no right whatsoever to challenge the appointment of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 22-2-2008 prk