IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7628 of 2009 Between: Prof B.S.N.Raju, S/o. late B.Ramabhadra Raju, Andhra University, Waltair, Visakhapatnam, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Registrar, Waltair, Visakhapatnam-530003 2 Prof. P.Malleswara Rao, S/o. Late Simmanna, Department of Civil Engineering Andhra University, Visakhapatnam- 3 .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.AJAY KUMAR Counsel for Respondent No.1:MR.M.V.RAJA RAM The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 University in fixing the Cycle of Roster in violation of Rule 22 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.V.Rajaram, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, there is no need to issue notice to respondent No.2. The dispute pertaining to final seniority is ceased of by respondent No.1. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2446 of 2004 with the grievance that respondent No.1 has not been finalizing the seniority of the petitioner in the category of Professors. This Court by order, dated 06.03.2009 disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to respondent No.1 to fix the inter se seniority among the Professors as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. At the hearing, Sri M.V.Rajaram, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that in pursuance of the said order, respondent No.1 has already constituted a Committee to make necessary recommendations for finalizing the inter se seniority and that the University is making necessary efforts to finalise the seniority as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2446 of 2004. Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that even before fixing the inter se seniority, respondent No.1 is proposing to appoint respondent No.2 as Head of the Department of Civil Engineering. Sri M.V.Rajaram, however, submitted that till now, the University is not contemplating any such move. Inasmuch the inter se dispute regarding seniority is directed to be finalized and respondent No.1 is making efforts in that direction, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the interim arrangement allegedly being contemplated by respondent No.1 regarding appointment of Head of the Department. In the facts of the case, it is appropriate to observe that appointment of Head of the Department of Civil Engineering will be subject to the final seniority list to be prepared by respondent No.1. This shall necessarily mean that if the petitioner is found to be senior and entitled to be appointed as Head of the Department, respondent No.1 shall accordingly, revise its decision on the issue of appointment of Head of the Department, if any interim arrangement is made pending finalisation of seniority list. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.10008 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th APRIL, 2009. kvni