IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 13817 of 2005 Between: Dr.A.Janaki, d/o late A.Seethapathi Rao, Dept. of Sanskrit, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam r/o Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Andhra University, Waltair, Visakhapatnam rep., by its Registrar. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not absorbing the petitioner in the post of Asst.Professor, Department of Sanskrit in the respondent-University, as has been done in respect of similarly situated employees as arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and consequently direct the respondent-University to absorb the petitioner as Asst.Professor in the existing vacancy in the Department of Sanskrit in the respondent-University from the date of her initial appointment, made vide proceedings No.S.II(1)/Misc./89 dt.6-3-1993 and with all other consequential beneﬁts, monetary and otherwise and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not absorbing the petitioner in the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Sanskrit in the respondent University, as has been done in respect of similarly situated employees as arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and consequently direct the respondent University to absorb the petitioner as Assistant Professor, in the existing vacancy in the Department of Sanskrit in the respondent University from the date of her initial appointment made vide proceedings dated 06-03-1993 and with all other consequential beneﬁts, monetary and otherwise. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, in the Department of Sanskrit during the year 1977, appointed her as a Research Associate. Her services were utilized for teaching to Post Graduate Diploma Courses in the said department from the date of her initial appointment. At that point of time, she possessed the Post Graduation Degree in Sanskrit with distinction and she was also awarded two gold medals in addition to the cash prize, for securing ﬁrst rank in the M.A. Degree. Though, she was initially appointed as Research Associate by the University, later on, the University awarded her with Junior Research Fellowship. In the year 1994, she was awarded with Ph.D. Degree and she was continued as Post Doctoral Research Fellow and worked as a Research Associate awarded by the UGC for a period of ﬁve years i.e. till 1992. While working as a Research Associate, her services were utilized by the 2nd respondent to teach the Post Graduate Diploma Courses, Post Graduation Degree in Sanskrit and also Sahitya and Alankara Sastra in the Department of Sanskrit. While so, by letter dated 13-03-1992 the Head of the Department of Sanskrit has requested the 2nd respondent to accord permission to utilize the services of the petitioner against the leave vacancy of Sri K.A. Krishnamacharyulu, Reader in the said Department who went on leave pending retirement, and accordingly her services were utilized till October, 1992. The Head of the Department of Sanskrit by his letter dated 20-07-1992 has once again requested the 2nd respondent to permit him to utilize the services of the petitioner from October, 1992 i.e. from the date of retirement of the said Sri K.A. Krishnamacharyulu, Reader and also requested to appoint the petitioner as Teaching Assistant on payment of remuneration as per the Rules of the 2nd respondent, taking into consideration of the services rendered by the petitioner as a Research Associate. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as a Teaching Assistant vide proceedings dated 06- 03-1993 in the Department of Sanskrit on a consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/- per month on temporary basis initially for a period of one year (or) till permanent arrangement is made with eﬀect from the date of joining. Ever since from the date of her appointment she is working against the sanctioned post of lecturer (now re-designated as Assistant professor) and her services have not been regularised in the capacity of Assistant Professor, in spite of several representations said to have been made by her. Therefore, she approached this Court by ﬁling the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was appointed as a Teaching Assistant vide proceedings dated 06-03-1993 by following due process of law temporarily and ever since from her appointment she has been working against the post of Assistant Professor. Therefore, she is entitled to absorption in the capacity of Assistant Professor. Further, it is also submitted that the petitioner made several representations and based on the said representations her salary is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner was appointed only as a Teaching Assistant temporarily and she is continuing as such therefore, she is not entitled to absorption in the capacity of Assistant Professor, which is a superior post to that of Teaching Assistant. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Teaching Assistant vide proceedings dated 06-03-1993, temporarily, and ever since of her appointment she is working in the same capacity receiving an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards salary as Teaching Assistant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I am of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondent-University to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption on the post which she is holding, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, by considering the representations said to have been made by her, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 25-08-2008 LSK