IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7235 of 1999 Between: 1 Smt. C.Veralakshmi W/o. T.Appa Rao M.R.College for Women Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District 2 Smt. M.Sita Rama W/o. G.Chittibabu M.R.College for Women Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District 3 Smt. M.Sarada W/o. N.S.R.Bhaskar M.R.College for Women Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District 4 Smt. G.Suryakanthi W/o. T.Venkataramana M.R.College for Women Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Secretary to Government,Education Department, Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Sirector and Commissioner of Collegiate Education Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 3 M.R.College for Women Vizianagaram Rep by its Principal and Correspondent, Vizianagaram .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the Nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not admitting the post held by the petitioners into grant-in-aid with effect from the dates on which they are created and the further action of the respondent in not paying the petitoners the arreasrs of salary with effect from the date on which the grant-in-aid posts are created as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable, violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to us under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to admit the posts held by the petitioners into grant-in-aid with effect from the dates on which they are created and to pay arrears of salary with effect form the dates on which the grant-in-aid posts were created and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.SHARATH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following Order: Petitioners herein, four in number, are all lecturers working in private aided colleges. While their services were regularized by the Government, their grievance in this writ petition is that they are entitled to have their services regularized from the date of their initial appointment in the colleges concerned. They would seek to compare their cases with those names referred to in the writ petition. On the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education pointing out that such a relief cannot be granted in view of the bar under Act 26 of 2006, Sri T.Sharath, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that since the relief sought for relates to a period anterior to the date from when the Act came into force, the petitioners shall, nonetheless, be entitled for the relief sought for. I must express my inability to agree. The relief sought for cannot be granted by this Court in view of the bar under Act 26 of 2006. The mere fact that the writ petition has been pending for quite some time would not justify any relief being granted in the face of a specific prohibition by an Act passed by the State legislature. Sri T.Sharath, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that he be given liberty to challenge the vires of the Act. Leaving it open to the petitioners, if they so choose, to question the validity of Act 26 of 2006 or any of its provisions, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________ 28-02-2008 usd