THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL Nos.1970 OF 1999, 1971 OF 1999, 2019 OF 1999, 2020 OF 1999, 323 OF 2000 AND WRIT PETITION No.24187 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: (Per Ramesh Ranganathan, J) These five appeals have been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.18520 of 1997 and batch dated 22.11.1999. Since Writ Petition No.24187 of 2005 is also connected with the aforementioned Writ Appeals, the said Writ Petition was also heard and is being disposed of along with the Writ Appeals. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge had directed the respondent-University to consider the case of the Petitioner, in Writ Petition No.18520 of 1997 and Writ Petition No.12748 of 1996, for appointment to the post of Head of the Department in accordance with law. The Writ Petitioner and Dr. V.Sudarshan, the 5th respondent-appellant were both appointed in March, 1996. While the petitioner was appointed, pursuant to a process of selection held on 2.3.1996, on 13-3-1996 the 5th respondent-appellant Dr.V.Sudarshan was appointed 3 days thereafter on 16.3.1996 and Dr.B.Rajeshwar Reddy was appointed as a Lecturer on 18.3.1996. While the petitioner Dr.R.Suryanarayana Sastry contended before the learned Single Judge that he had served as a Part- time Lecturer ever since 2-1-1981 and that the service rendered by him as part-time lecturer should also be taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning his seniority, and for placing him in the senior scale of pay, Dr.V.Sudarshan contended that the service rendered by him as a Lecturer in Vasavi College, (a private un-aided college), and his earlier service as a Research Assistant in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research should be taken into consideration in reckoning his seniority. The learned Single Judge negatived the petitioner’s request that the services rendered by him earlier as a Part-time Lecturer be taken into consideration in determining his eligibility for placement in the selection grade scale. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of Dr.V.Sudarshan that the services rendered by him as a Lecturer in Vasavi College be taken into consideration in reckoning his seniority. However, his request that the services rendered by him as a Research Assistant in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research be taken into consideration was negatived. The learned Single Judge faulted the manner in which Dr. V. Sudarshan was appointed as a Reader and observed that though he was working in the Department of Applied Geochemistry, Dr. V.Sudarshan was selected as Reader in Geology but was permitted to work in the Department of Applied Geochemistry. The learned Single Judge also faulted the manner in which Dr.B.Rajeshwar Reddy was appointed as a Reader and observed that even though the appointment of Dr.V.Sudarshan as a Reader was itself improper, he was a member of the Selection Committee which had selected Dr. B.Rajeshwar Reddy as a Reader and, therefore, the latter’s appointment as a Reader was also improper. While several contentions have been urged, in the appeals preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge, on behalf of all the three Professors, Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for Dr.V.Sudarshan, Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for Dr.R.Suryanarayana Sastry and Sri V.R.N.Prashanth, learned Counsel appearing for Dr.B.Rajeshwar Reddy agreed that it was unnecessary for this Court to adjudicate all the questions raised and that it would suffice if their actual date of appointment i.e., in respect of Dr. R.Suryanarayana Sastry dated 13.3.1986, in respect of Dr.V.Sudarshan dated 16.3.1986 and in respect of Dr.B.Rajeshwar Reddy dated 18.3.1986 be taken as their actual date of appointment and their seniority be reckoned from that date ignoring the services rendered by them earlier either as a Part- time Lecturer or a Lecturer in Vasavi College or a Research Assistant in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. In view of what has now been agreed to by all the three Counsel, it is not necessary for us to examine these questions. Suffice to hold that the eligibility of all the three persons, i.e, Dr. R.Suryanarayana Sastry, Dr.V.Sudershan and Dr.B.Rajeshwar Reddy, in the relevant posts, and for being extended the benefit of selection grade scale, and the services rendered by them shall be taken into consideration only from the date of their actual appointment as Lecturers in the Department of Applied Geochemistry in the Osmania University, ignoring the services rendered by them earlier. While this puts an end to one part of the controversy, Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for Dr.V.Sudarshan, would however, point out that his client would have been eligible, in his own right, to be appointed as a Reader in the Department of Applied Geo-chemistry and the mere fact that his selection as a Reader in the year 1995 was faulted by the learned Single Judge should not result in his being placed in a worse position than if he had not appeared for the said selection at all. According to the learned counsel the least which can be done is to ensure that Dr. V.Sudarshan is not denied the benefit of the period of service rendered by him as a Reader, working in the Department of Applied Geochemistry, at least from the year 1999 onwards. While this submission made by the learned counsel cannot be said to be without merit, we must remain conscious of the fact that it is not for this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a mandamus to the University to add this period of service for reckoning his seniority, as these are all matters for the University to examine. Needless to state that the mere fact that the appointment of Dr.V.Sudarshan as Reader in the year 1995 was held by the learned Single Judge to be illegal would not disentitle him for being considered for appointment as Reader from the date he was eligible in the year 1999. We have no reason to doubt that the University would consider the case of Dr.V.Sudarshan for appointment as Reader from the year 1999 in the Department of Applied Geochemistry in accordance with law, more so since it is not in dispute that ever since his earlier appointment as Reader in Geology in the year 1995, Dr.V.Sudarshan continued to work as Reader in the Department of Applied Geochemistry. During the pendency of these Writ Appeals, both Dr.R.Suryanarayana Sastry and Dr. B.Rajeshwar Reddy were considered for appointment, and were appointed as Professors in February, 2007, Dr.V.Sudarshan was, however, not considered in view of the order of the learned Single Judge. Pursuant to the interim orders passed in these Appeals, his case was also considered but the result was, however, kept in a sealed cover. We consider it appropriate to modify the order of the learned Single Judge, direct the University to decide on Dr.V.Sudarshan’s entitlement to be appointed as a Reader in the Department of Applied Geochemistry in accordance with the observations aforementioned, thereafter open the sealed cover and give effect to its results. The entire exercise, as aforementioned, shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that till the University takes a final decision as aforementioned, all the three persons i.e., Dr. R.Suryanaraya Sastry, Dr.V.Sudarshan and Dr. B.Rajeshwar Reddy shall be entitled for pay protection and to be paid the pay scales they are receiving as on date. It is also made clear that the University shall not, in any event, effect recoveries from the salaries already paid to the aforementioned three persons. All the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition are disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J Date: 1.7.2008 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. CHV & GS