IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8071 of 2009 Between: Dr. D. Chandra Mouli Reddy S/o. Late Professor D. Venkat Reddy Sri Krishna Devaraya University, Ananthapur. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Krishna Devaraya University Rep. by its Registrar Ananthapur, Ananthapur Dist. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent: ---- The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: (i) to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent in refusing to give preference to the petitioner as per the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 227 of 1998, dated 13-7-1999 as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India. (ii) direct the respondent to give preference to the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer/Asst. Professor in Political Science pursuant to the Notification No. SKU/EEII/ GENERAL-1/2009, dated 04-02-2009 in the interest of justice and also consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Lecturer/Asst. Professor in Political Science in respondent University. (iii) declare that the action of the respondent in giving artificial break to the petitioner in the post of Teaching Assistant as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and direct the respondent to continue the petitioner as Teaching Assistant unless the vacancy is filled up by a regularly selected candidate.” Though several contentions have been raised by Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, he eventually agreed for disposal of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise the plea of preferential treatment to be given to him in the event the respondent–University takes an adverse decision in the course of selections to the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science). The learned counsel further urged that the petitioner cannot be replaced by the respondents, in order to accommodate another person on adhoc basis. The law is well settled that an adhoc employee cannot be replaced by another adhoc employee. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of, without going into the plea of the petitioner for preferential treatment but, with liberty to him to raise the said question at an appropriate time after completion of the selection process. The respondent shall, however, not discontinue the petitioner until the post is filled up on permanent basis. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP Nos.10561 and 10564 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 20th April, 2009 Note: Issue C.C in five days Vrn