IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7018 of 2009 Between: K. Sundar, S/o. Kanakaiah, Building Division, Kakatiya University, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Kakatiya University, Represented by its Vice Chancellor, Warangal. 2 The Registrar, Kakatiya University, Warangal. 3 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education Department, represented by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance Department, represented by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 K. Ram Mohan, S/o. K. Janardhan, Building Division, Kakatiya University, Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in including the name of the petitioner against supernumerary post of Supervisor vide G.O.Ms.No.47, Finance (SMPC) Department, dated 17.02.2009, despite the fact that he was promoted to the post of Supervisor as far back as 08.08.1989 and not including the name of respondent No.5 in the said G.O., as illegal. The petitioner, who was temporarily appointed as Tracer in respondent No.1 University, was promoted as Supervisor in the scale of 1330-2630 in the Building Division, Kakatiya University by proceedings, dated 08.08.1989 of the In-charge Registrar of respondent No.1 University. Respondent No.5, who was appointed as Work Inspector much later than the petitioner, was also promoted to the post of Supervisor on the same day on which the petitioner was promoted as Supervisor. Respondent No.3 had issued G.O.Ms.No.47, Finance (SMPC) Department, dated 17.02.2009, wherein it sanctioned 133 posts in different cadres for regularization of personal promotions. Annexure-I contains the persons in whose favour the posts were sanctioned. The petitioner figures at Sl.No.9 and his personal promotion to the post of Supervisor was regularized with retrospective effect, namely, 04.01.1990. The petitioner filed the present writ petition with the plea that as he was already promoted as far back as 08.08.1989 in a regular vacancy, he should not have been included in the said G.O. His grievance also extends to non-inclusion of name of respondent No.5 on the premise that by his exclusion, respondent No.1 University might be treating as having been promoted in a regular vacancy and thereby he may be treated as being senior to the petitioner, which may adversely affect the interest of the petitioner for future promotions. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, I am of the view that the grievance of the petitioner is wholly misconceived and illusory. The plea of the petitioner that he was given regular promotion as Supervisor on 08.08.1989 is wholly merit-less. A perusal of the order by which the petitioner was purportedly promoted to the post of Supervisor clearly shows that he was temporarily appointed to the said post. It was clearly mentioned in the said order as under: “This appointment is purely temporary subject to rules and conditions in vogue in the University form time to time and revertable at any time without notice and without assigning any reasons therefor.” Indeed, under the G.O. referred to above, the petitioner’s temporary appointment was regularized as Supervisor with retrospective effect i.e. from 04.01.1990. But for this G.O., the petitioner may be liable to be reverted to the substantive post of Tracer by respondent No.1. It is really surprising that the petitioner chose to challenge the G.O., which is beneficial to him, on the misplaced apprehension that by non-inclusion of respondent No.5 in the said G.O., respondent No.1 may treat him as having been regularly promoted and that may affect his seniority in future. There may be a host of reasons for respondent No.1 for not including respondent No.5 in the said G.O. That by itself would not warrant any inference that respondent No.1 has treated respondent No.5 as having been regularly promoted to the post of Supervisor and has been treating him as senior to the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed any material to show that either respondent No.5 was treated as having been regularly promoted or that he was treated as senior to the petitioner. The petitioner has indulged in frivolous litigation by filing this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.9173 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd APRIL, 2009. kvni