THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.5850 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing Rc.No.2074/Admn.III-3/2000, dated 23.01.2001, rejecting the request of the petitioner for absorption against aided vacancy of Lecturer in Telugu, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner in the said aided post in the 2nd respondent’s college pursuant to the selection dated 26.09.1995. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that pursuant to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent, M.R. College, he applied for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Telugu and an interview was conducted on 26.09.1995 in accordance with the selection procedure contained in G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10.01.1992. Since he was placed at Serial No.3 in merit ranking and who placed at Serial No.1 and 2 did not join, he is entitled to be given the benefit of selection. It is also submitted that though he was selected to the unaided post of lecturer, the 2nd respondent did not issue any order of appointment and directed him to work as Sanskrit Pandit in M.R. High School. Thus, he has been working under the impression that as and when the selection dated 26.09.1995 is given effect to, he would be appointed as lecturer in aided post. Though there are vacancies of aided Telugu lecturer in the 2nd respondent’s College and as per the directions, he has been continuing as Sanskrit Pandit, some other persons namely B.Chinna Rao, Dr.S.Radha and V.Surya Kumari were admitted to Grant-in-Aid posts as lecturers in other departments. Therefore, he filed W.P. No.22546 of 2000 that was disposed of by this Court on 21.11.2000 directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner for admission into Grant-in-Aid post of lecturer in Telugu department pursuant to the selection held on 26.09.1995, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10.01.1992. Pursuant to the said direction, the 1st respondent, Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, issued impugned proceeding dated 23.01.2001, rejecting to admit the petitioner into Grant-in-Aid post as Telugu lecturer. Hence, the present writ petition. From a perusal of the record, the main grievance of the petitioner is that he attended the interview and as per the directions he has been working as Sanskrit Pandit under the same management under the impression that as and when the selection is given effect to, he would be appointed as lecturer in aided post and thereafter some other persons were admitted to Grant-in-Aid posts as lecturers in other departments. Bringing to all the said facts he filed W.P. No.22546 of 2000 and this Court disposed of the same, directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction, the 1st respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 23.01.2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is apparent on the face of the record that pursuant to the notification, the petitioner attended the interview but he has not been issued any appointment orders but he stated that as per the directions he has been continuing as Sanskrit Pandit in the high school, which is under the same management. Therefore, it is clear from the above that though pursuant to the notification, the petitioner attended the interview but he was neither issued any appointment orders nor he was working as lecturer. Therefore, he has no right to claim any benefits pursuant to the said notification as lecturer. Further, from a perusal of the letter dated 03.01.2001 addressed by the Correspondent of Maharajah’s College to the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate it is submitted that the notification issued and conducted interviews on 26.09.1995 and the petitioner herein was placed at Serial No.3. It is also submitted that the posts were allocated for S.C. candidates under limited recruitment to backlog S.C., and S.T., posts for which, advertisement was given. In view of the above, it is obvious that the notification issued for Telugu lecturer was for S.C. candidates. The petitioner is neither S.C. nor S.T. and he belongs to B.C. “D”. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner that the candidates, who placed at Serial No.1 and 2, did not evince any interest to join and he is entitled to the benefit of selection is not proper and sustainable. Coming to the aspect that some other selected persons were admitted in Grant-in-Aid posts as lecturers and he filed W.P. No.22546 of 2000 and the same was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner. The court passed the following order: “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to admit him in the Grant-in-Aid post of Lecturer in Telugu Department in second respondent college pursuant to the Selection held on 26.9.1995 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10.1.1992 and for consequential benefits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” In compliance with the above direction, the respondents have passed the impugned order, which reads as under: “On receipt of the Court Directions, the Correspondent, M.R.(A) College, Vizianagaram who was asked to submit his remarks has reported vide ref.2nd read above that, the petitioner Sri.J.Ramakrishna, attended the interview held on 26.9.95 and was placed at S.No.3 in the order of merit. He has been working as Sanskrit Pandit against aided post at M.R.High School, Vizianagaram and continues to do so. In this connection the Correspondent, Maharajah’s College (A), Vizianagaram is informed that the interview held on 26.9.95 were for purely un-aided sections and those who were selected and joined the college against the un-aided posts were absorbed to Grant-in-Aid as and when vacancy arose on at a later date. The Lecturers viz. Sri B.Chinna Rao, Dr.S.Radha and Smt. V.Surya Kumari are working in the college at the time of their absorption and whereas, the petitioner did not join and work in the college against the un-aided post and ever since he is already working as aided Sanskrit Pandit in M.R. High School all along cannot claim now for his absorption merely because he attended the interview held on 26.9.95 and was placed at S.No.3 in the panel. In the above circumstances and in the light of the Hon’ble Court directions, dated 21.11.2000 the case has been examined in the above reported circumstances there are no merits in the case for consideration of the claim of the petitioner and the same is rejected.” It is clear from the above that those who were absorbed were working as lecturers as on the date of their absorption but the petitioner neither appointed as lecturer nor working as such. Mere attending the interview on 26.09.1995 without working as lecturer and working as Sanskrit Pandit in High School cannot claim absorption against the aided vacancy as lecturer on par with others. Therefore, I am of the view that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.22546 of 2000 on 21.11.2000, the 1st respondent has rightly considered the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned proceedings. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the 1st respondent passed impugned proceedings dated 23.01.2001 cannot be held as illegal and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 03.12.2010 LSK