IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 7661 of 1999 Between: Kanchanmala Baburao Kulkarni (Jetkar) W/o Dilipkumar Jetkar, R/o Kachiguda, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissiner of Collegiate Education, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The State of A.P. rep.by its Secretary, Education Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 V.V.Educational Society, represented by its Secretary & Correspndent, Jambagh, Hyderabad. 5 Smt. Prabha Deshpande, VV Day College, Jambagh, Hyderabad .....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 especially one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings Rc.No,. 1096P.C . 3-1/97 dated 3-6-1998 of the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, un-constitutional, null and void and contrary to the directions of this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to approve the appointment / regularisaion of the services of the petitioner in the vacancy caused on the proposals sent by the 4th respondent and the directions of this Hon'ble Court inter-partiesand accord all consequential and other attendant benefits as regards arrears of pay, seniority and such other attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as may be found expedient or the interests of justice warrant. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.VENKAT SASTRY Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. FOR HIGHER EDUCATION FOR RR 1 TO 3, MR.M.P.UGLE FOR R4 & MR.K.V.SUBBA REDDY FOR R5 The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the proceedings Rc.No.1096/PC.3-1/97 dated 3.6.1998 of the first respondent as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to approve the appointment/regularization of the services of the petitioner in the vacancy caused due to retirement of D.P.Joshi, Lecturer in Marathi as per the proposals sent by fourth respondent. It appears, petitioner while working as Part-time Lecturer in Marathi in Vivek Vardhani College, Hyderabad, her appointment was recommended for approval and regularization against an aided vacancy of Lecturer in Marathi. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner was selected by a properly constituted selection committee of Marathi Maha Vidyalaya Oriental College, Hyderabad and her appointment was approved by the Director of Collegiate Education in the year 1997 and she has been drawing her regular salary as per UGC scales of 1986. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that though she was selected to the post of Lecturer in Marathi Maha Vidyalaya Oriental College, Hyderabad in open recruitment, but her services rendered in Vivek Vardhani College, Hyderabad as Lecturer in Marathi from 1992 till 1997 have to be considered for the purpose of seniority, pension etc., and though the management of Vivek Vardhani College, Hyderabad recommended her case for regularization, the same was rejected by the respondents on the ground that in the meanwhile, petitioner was selected in an open competition in Marathi Maha Vidyalaya Oriental College, Hyderabad. May be, what the petitioner says is true, but this issue cannot be gone into in the present writ petition. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, petitioner is directed to make a detailed representation before the appropriate authority seeking for reckoning her services rendered in Vivek Vardhani College as Lecturer in Marathi from 1992 to 1997 for the purpose of retiral benefits etc. If any such application is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and disposed of without reference to the impugned order, as per law, within a period of eight (8)weeks from the date of receipt of such representation and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 20.2.2008 DA