IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.4363 of 2009 Between: Kalva Deepika. … Petitioner And The Secretary, APREI Society (Regd), Gagan Vihar, III Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri I.Venkata Prasad. Counsel for the respondents: None This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not permitting the petitioner to attend the classes in respondent No.2- Institution, as illegal and arbitrary. Though notice before admission was issued, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to have been provisionally selected by respondent No.1 in pursuance of notification dated 16-5-2005 issued for appointment to the post of TGT-Science in respondent No.2-Institution. The petitioner averred in her affidavit that in pursuance of the provisional selection, she was permitted to work for the academic years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and that after reopening of the schools in the year 2008 respondent No.2 has not permitted her to attend the classes. The petitioner relied upon order dated 18-7- 2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.13123 of 2008 seeking a similar direction as was given in the said order. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. Though the petitioner filed a copy of order of provisional selection, she has not filed the appointment order. In letter dated 17-7-2008 addressed to respondent No.1 the petitioner stated that she was appointed as CRI-TGT in Bio-science and posted in KGBV, Peddamandadi, Mahabubnagar District, from 22-8-2005; and that she has not received the orders of renewal for the academic year 2008-09. In Writ Petition No.13123 of 2008 this Court, while taking note of the fact that the appointments made therein are of contractual nature and that the petitioner therein remained absent almost for a period of one year, however, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for engagement as a teacher, if the vacancy is still available, as and when the respondents take steps to fill the same. In the absence of guarantee of tenure, the petitioner does not have a legal right to seek direction to continue her in service. However, as the petitioner was selected in pursuance of the notification issued in the year 2005 and was allowed to work for three academic years, there can be no reason for the respondents not to consider her case for being engaged as TGT, if the vacancies are available. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for engaging her as TGT or in any of the vacancies available in respondent No.2-institution on temporary basis. It is needless to observe that as and when the respondents take up steps for filling up of the vacancies on permanent basis, the petitioner shall be entitled to apply for the same. ----------------------------------- --- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:15-4-2009 MNR