THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 26233 of 2000 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in Political Science in 3rd respondent- College from the date of appointment i.e. 10.8.1995 and further action of respondents in regularizing the services of the petitioner only from 26.2.1998 while regularizing the services of his junior from much earlier date as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; consequently, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to regularize the services of petitioner as Lecturer in Political Science from the date of his appointment. It appears, petitioner was subjected to regular selection process pursuant to a Notification issued by 3rd respondent- College and has been appointed as Part-time Lecturer initially, in the year 1992. However, from 10.8.1995 onwards he has been discharging the functions of a full-fledged Lecturer in Political Science with 3rd respondent-College. According to him, he was further subjected to a selection process by duly constituted selection committee as required under the law for the purpose of selection of Lecturers in 3rd respondent-College and his name was recommended by the said College for being absorbed against an aided vacancy already existing, in the month of June, 1992. But somehow, the same did not fructify in spite of best efforts made by 3rd respondent-College and since the respondents-authorities did not act upon the recommendations of 3rd respondent-College, he had filed W.P.No. 252 of 1997. In view of the interim directions granted therein, the case of the petitioner was considered and orders were passed on 26.2.1998. However, in the said order, it is stated that the Director of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad ordered for regularization of the services of Part-time Lecturer as shown in the Annexure as a Lecturer and admit him into grant-in-aid with effect from the date of issuance of the orders in the existing aided vacancy. That is how, the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 20.2.1998. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that though the case of the petitioner was recommended as early as in the month of June, 1992, his services were regularized only with effect from 20.2.1998. In fact, the case one Ramana Reddy, Lecturer in the same College, though recommended for regularization of his services along with the case of the petitioner, was considered and proceedings were issued on 15.10.1997. According to the petitioner, the said Ramana Reddy was 10 years junior to him in the College, but the said Ramana Reddy marched over him by four months in seniority and payscale etc. and, therefore, injustice is caused to him. The above facts would reveal that ultimately the grievance of the petitioner is that instead of regularizing his services from 26.2.1997, his services were regularized with effect from 20.2.1998. May be, petitioner is senior, but the approval was granted in his case for absorption against a regular vacancy, only on 20.2.1998. Therefore, it is for the authorities to verify and pass appropriate orders for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner for absorption against aided vacancy from 26.2.1997. Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularizing his services with retrospective effect on par with Ramana Reddy with effect from 26.2.1997 and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 11-02-2011. Note: Issue copies of the Order, within a week. (BO) MVB.