THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.12855 of 1995 and 2620 of 1998 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.12855 of 1995 This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents 1 and 2 in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.302 Education dated 23.8.1991 in spite of common directions issued in W.A.No.683 of 1998 and batch and W.A.No.667 and 669 of 1988 and batch and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization of her services in the post of Lecturer in Economics from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 3.6.1985 and also direct them to pay the scale attached to the post after admitting the post to grant-in-aid and to continue the petitioner in the same college. After filing the writ petition, the Government of A.P. passed orders vide G.O.Rt.No.1903 Education (CE.II) Department dated 19.12.1997 regularising the services of fourth respondent in the transferred aided post of Lecturer in Economics and admitting the same to grant-in-aid. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2620 of 1998. In view of the same, nothing survives in this writ petition for further adjudication and therefore the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. W.P.No.2620 of 1998 This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned G.O.Rt.No.1903 Education (CE-II) Department dated 19.12.1997 insofar as it relates to directing the second respondent to regularize the services of the fourth respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to regularise services of the petitioner in the post of Lecturer in Economics from the date of her initial appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a Post Graduate in M.A. Economics and was appointed as Lecturer in Economics on temporary basis on 3.6.1985 in the pay scale of Rs.700-1600 in the third respondent- College. Thereafter, her appointment was ratified by the Nagarjuna University, to which, the College is affiliated vide proceedings of the Deputy Registrar dated 17.11.1990. Though the petitioner was appointed on adhoc/temporary basis, she has been discharging her duties on par with regular Lecturers, who are similarly situated, in the College. The Regional Joint Director, recommended two posts of Lecturers in Economics, which includes the post in which petitioner is holding vide proceedings dated 15.10.1990, for admitting into grant-in-aid. However, Government permitted only one post of Lecturer in Economics, to be admitted to grant-in-aid, vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.173 dated 4.5.1991, against which one Murali Krishna was adjusted and regularized. Thereafter, the Government, under the impugned G.O., permitted the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to shift the surplus vacant aided post of Lecturer of Economics available in C.S.R. Sarma College, Ongole to M.V.G.R.R. College, Bhattiprolu and the service of M.Nagamuneendra Rao (fourth respondent) shall be regularized against the said post from the date of transfer of the post. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as Lecturer in Economics with effect from 3.6.1985, whereas fourth respondent was appointed with effect from 6.7.1984, and at the time of their initial appointment, both were not having requisite qualified marks i.e. 55% in Post Graduate Degree. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she was appointed w.e.f. 3.6.1985 and fourth respondent was appointed w.e.f. 6.7.1984, she acquired requisite percentage of marks i.e. 55% marks in Post Graduate Degree in the year 1988, whereas fourth respondent acquired the same only in the year 1991. Therefore, according to the petitioner, she should be treated as senior to fourth respondent, but to her utter surprise, the first respondent passed the impugned G.O. permitting the second respondent to shift the surplus vacant aided post of Lecturer of Economics available in C.S.R. Sarma College, Ongole to M.V.G.R.R. College, Bhattiprolu and regularised the services of fourth respondent against the said post, which is arbitrary and illegal. Hence this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stated that the petitioner is not possessed with 55% marks in her P.G. Degree at the time of her appointment as required under Rules, to hold the post of Lecturer in Economics on regular basis. Though, she belongs to O.C. category, she was appointed against a vacancy reserved for B.C ‘B’ category. Hence the very appointment of the petitioner was in violation of all rules i.e. qualification, rule of reservation and selection procedure. As such the petitioner has no claim to consider the post held by her for being admitted to grant-in-aid and to regularize her services. The college in which petitioner is working is an aided College since 16.4.1990. While admitting the college into grant-in-aid, Government has sanctioned only one post of Lecturer in Economics and in that post a person was already appointed. Thus, the petitioner has absolutely no case to put forth her claim for admission into grant-in-aid. It is further stated that the petitioner is not a part-time Lecturer engaged by the College for applying the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23.8.1991. The said G.O. is applicable only in the cast of part-time Lecturers who have the requisite qualifications to hold the post of Lecturer in Degree Colleges and have 2½ years of service as on 31.3.1991 against the aided vacant posts. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner to regularize her services as Lecturer in Economics is not feasible. It is also stated that as per the proposals submitted to the Government vide letters dated 18.3.1996 and 10.12.1996, Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1903 dated 19.12.1997 permitting the second respondent to shift the surplus vacant aided post of Lecturer in Economics available at C.S.R. Sarma College, Ongole to the M.V.S.R.R. College, Bhattiprolu and regularize the services of fourth respondent as Lecturer in Economics against the post from the date of transfer of the said post. Accordingly, Government orders have been implemented vide orders dated 6.1.1998. The third respondent-College filed a separate counter stating that the petitioner is neither qualified nor eligible for absorption or regularization. In the counter filed in W.P.No.12855 of 1995, the respondent-College stated that the workload at the time of admission of post to grant-in-aid was only 28 hours in the faculty of Economics, therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 appears to have admitted only one post into grant-in-aid. The respondent-College in fact had recommended the case of the petitioner for admission to grant-in- aid. Since the respondents 1 and 2 did not admit the post held by the petitioner to grant-in-aid, the respondent-College had made it clear that the services of the petitioner cannot be utilized in view of reduced workload. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner has been working in the College whenever there is work, without any pay, subject to the outcome of her representations made to the Department, for admitting the post to grant-in- aid. It is further stated that there is no workload to accommodate another Lecturer in Economics as the workload has fallen to 28 hours in May/June 1991. The third respondent further stated that the College has no objection if the respondents 1 and 2 admits the post to grant-in-aid and for release of her salaries. The fourth respondent also filed a counter and additional counter stating that he is a Post Graduate appointed as Lecturer in Economics on 6.7.1984 in the third respondent College along with other teaching staff. Whereas, petitioner and one Murali Krishna were appointed as Lecturers in Economics only on 3.6.1985 and in the seniority, they were shown at Serial Nos.11 and 10 respectively and fourth respondent was shown at Serial No.2. As per the orders of the Government in G.O.Rt.No.1903 dated 19.12.1997, being senior most in the department, his case was considered for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Economics and the same was admitted to grant-in-aid. The said appointment was made by duly following the rule of reservation as he belongs to B.C. ‘B’ category. It is further stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to question his seniority and qualification as the fourth respondent is the senior most person in the department and also qualified for the grant-in-aid post at the time of sanction of the said post to the college. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. It appears, the third respondent College was established in the year 1983-84. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Economics with effect from 3.6.1985 and she has been continuously working as such, whereas, fourth respondent was appointed with effect from 6.7.1984. Now the controversy is as to whether the petitioner should have been treated as senior to fourth respondent or not and whether the fourth respondent was to be adjusted against the transferred aided vacancy or not. Admittedly, petitioner was appointed with effect from 3.6.1985 and whereas fourth respondent was appointed as Lecturer in Economics with effect from 6.7.1984. The contention of the petitioner is that though the fourth respondent was appointed in the year 1984, both of them were appointed temporarily and initially both of them do not possess the required qualifying marks in Post Graduate Degree i.e. 55% marks, and later petitioner acquired the same in the year 1988, whereas fourth respondent acquired the same in the year 1991 i.e. much later to the petitioner. Therefore, the fourth respondent must be treated as junior to the petitioner. This contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. May be, the petitioner was fully qualified in the year 1988, but that itself does not mean that the she is senior to fourth respondent. The criteria for the purpose of recommending a person to be admitted to grant-in- aid is not acquiring 55% of marks, it is the seniority in the cadre, which is important. Once both of them qualified by the time the vacancy had arisen, seniority from date of first appointment has to be taken into consideration, for the purpose of considering for being admitted to grant-in-aid post. Simply because the petitioner obtained qualified marks of 55% or more in the year 1988, she will not become senior for the purpose of admitting her post to grant-in-aid. The criterion is that one should have qualified as on the date when the vacancy had arisen. Admittedly, in this case, by the time, the surplus vacant aided post of Lecturer in Economics was transferred from C.S.R. Sarma College, Ongole to the third respondent college, the petitioner as well as fourth respondent were qualified and accordingly, the fourth respondent who is one year senior to the petitioner was considered for appointment with effect from the date of transfer of the said post. Looking from any angle, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner requires to be considered in preference to the fourth respondent treating her as senior or the regularization of the services of fourth respondent can be said to be arbitrary or illegal. It is further brought to the notice of the Court that even the said post was again transferred from third respondent College to some other College. Though an argument was advanced by the learned senior counsel Sri M.R.K.Chowdary appearing for the petitioner that regularization is not within the realm of the Government and it is for the management/employer and in this case, under the impugned G.O., the case of the fourth respondent was regularized by the Government. It appears, from the impugned G.O. that the second respondent through his letters dated 18.3.1996 and 10.12.1996 had recommended for regularization of services of fourth respondent against aided post. May be, there is some thing in what the petitioner says, but it will be a futile exercise to go into this aspect, since the petitioner is junior to fourth respondent and as on the date when the vacancy had arisen, though both of them were qualified. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. However, this will not preclude the third respondent-College and the Respondent authorities in considering the case of the petitioner for admitting the post held by her to grant-in-aid and regularizing her services in the post of Lecturer in Economics either in the same College or any other College as and when required. Subject to above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 17.2.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.12855 of 1995 and 2620 of 1998 17.2.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.12855 of 1995 and 2620 of 1998 Date: 17th February, 2009 Between: Kum.Bhattiprolu Phanisree .. Petitioner in both W.Ps. And Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad & others. .. Respondents in both W.Ps.