IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.8885 of 2011 Between: Ms.Farzana Begum … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education (C>E.-II), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.8885 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not passing any orders on the report dated 25.10.2008 of the 2nd respondent by considering the case of the petitioner for regularization of services, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of the well settled principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she got appointed as part time lecturer in the 3rd respondent’s college, Mumtaz Degree and P.G. College, on 22.09.1988 and she has been teaching the Botany subject in both media i.e. English and Urdu. Even though the 3rd respondent recommended her name for regularization, there was no response from the authorities. Therefore, she made a representation dated 21.06.2008 requesting the authorities to regularize her services, pursuant to which, the 2nd respondent, Commissioner of Collegiate Education, vide his memo dated 05.08.2008 has called for remarks from the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent, in turn, vide letter dated 30.08.2008 sent the remarks of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent vide his letter dated 25.10.2008 submitted his report to the 1st respondent, Government of A.P., but the 1st respondent did not consider her case for regularization and pass any orders. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that non consideration of the case of the petitioner by the 1st respondent and not passing any orders on the letter dated 25.10.2008, addressed by the 2nd respondent, is illegal and arbitrary. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that as on today there is no scheme for regularization and the same is very clear from the letter dated 25.10.2008, addressed by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. Therefore, the case of the petitioner has not been considered. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material on record. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner has been working in the 3rd respondent’s college for the last 20 years and she is drawing Rs.6,400/- per month on consolidated basis. The only grievance of the petitioner is that though she has been working for the last so many years in the 3rd respondent’s college, her services are not regularized. Therefore, she made a representation to the authorities requesting her services to be regularised. Based on which, the 2nd respondent called for remarks from the 3rd respondent and on receiving the same, the 2nd respondent vide his letter dated 25.10.2008 addressed a letter to the 1st respondent, which reads as under: “With reference to the Govt. memo cited, I wish to state that Miss Farzana Begum has been appointed as Part time Lecturer in Botany on 22.09.1988 on consolidated pay. She passed M.S.c in first class and completed 20 years of service. He selection has not been made through the proper selection Committee. Her case will not fall into the ambit of any mode of appointment. The Correspondent has stated that there is a gap period of one year i.e. from 04.03.1991 to 23.04.1991. Now, she is drawing Rs.6,400/- per month on consolidated basis. Out of 4 sanctioned posts in Botany subject, two Lecturers are working and two posts are vacant in the College. In this connection, I wish to state that in order to examine the request of the Correspondent, the procedure as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.328, Edn., dated 15.10.1997 has to be adopted. As on today, there is no scheme for regularization of services of Part time Lecturers and the scheme of regularization of eligible part time Lecturers as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.328 Edn., Dated 15.10.1997 has already annulled by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.283, dated 03.11.1999. This is submitted for favour of kind information and suitable orders of the Govt.” From a perusal of the record and according to the submissions of the learned counsel, after addressing the said letter by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent did not pass any orders and the same is pending with the 1st respondent. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the said letter. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the 1st respondent, Government of Andhra Pradesh, representing its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, on the letter dated 25.10.2008, addressed by the 2nd respondent, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 03.11.2011 LSK