IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7347 of 2009 Between: 1 P.Nageswara Rao S/o.P.Babu Rao Rajahmundry, E.G. District, and Resident of Rajahmundry. 2 D.Ramakrishna S/o.Late D.Venkata Rao S.K.V.T. College,Rajahmundry, E.G. District, and Resident at Rajahmundry. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Kandukuri Veeresalingam Theistic College, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. represented by its Correspondent. 3 Smt.A.B. Santha Rajyam S/o.Koteswara Rao presently holding full additional charge as Principal. 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.SUDHEER KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 4:AGP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in considering representation, dated 17.03.2009 submitted by the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri M.Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education for respondent Nos.1 and 4. In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to issue notices to respondent Nos.2 and 3. There is an inter se dispute over seniority between the petitioners on the one side and respondent No.3 on the other. Respondent No.2 made in-charge arrangements by keeping respondent No.3 as in-charge Principal. The petitioners’ appeal filed against the final seniority list before respondent No.1 is said to be pending. Apprehending that respondent No.3 may tamper with the registers adversely affecting their interests, the petitioners made representation, dated 17.03.2009 to respondent No.1 to remove respondent No.3 from in-charge arrangement and appoint another person as in-charge Principal. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation is not disposed of. In my considered view, as the appeal filed by the petitioners before respondent No.1 is stated to be pending, it would be in the fitness of things that respondent No.1 disposes of the appeal itself in a time bound manner. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the contention raised by the petitioners with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners against final seniority list, dated 29.01.2008, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after hearing the petitioners and respondent No.3. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.9632 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 8th APRIL, 2009. kvni