THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 23572 OF 1999 Dated: 28.01.2011 Between: Smt. Veena Reddy ..... Petitioner And State of A.P., and others ….. Respondents The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 23572 OF 1999 ORDER : The petitioner was appointed as a part time Lecturer in Botany in the 4th respondent College on 25.09.1985. Subsequently by order dated 28.06.1997 the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer on regular scale of pay subject to approval by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. However, the Commissioner ordered regularisation subject to the condition of the petitioner acquiring NET/SLET qualification within two years. Accordingly, the 4th respondent by proceedings dated 08.10.1999 called upon the petitioner to submit the pass certificates within the stipulated period. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that as the petitioner had satisfied all the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997, the respondents ought to have regularised her services without insisting on acquiring qualification of National Eligibility Test or State Level Eligibility Test. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent stating that the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission has accorded the concurrence and regularised the services of the petitioner in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997 vide proceedings dated 06.03.1998 with a condition that they should acquire National Eligibility Test or State Level Eligibility Test within a period of two years of their regularisation failing which, their services are liable for termination. As could be seen, the impugned order dated 08.10.1999 is only a consequential order pursuant to the decision taken by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 06.03.1998. Admittedly the 2nd respondent’s order dated 06.03.1998 became final and the petitioner did not choose to challenge the same. Hence the consequential order passed by the 4th respondent cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 28.01.2011 Ivd