THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1052 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner feels aggrieved by the memo, dated 07.01.2004, issued by respondent No.1 in refusing to regularize her services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.328 Education (CE.III) Department, dated 15.10.1997. The petitioner states that she joined in V.V. & M. Degree College, Ongole, an institution admitted to grant-in-aid, as Part- Time Lecturer in Political Science on 22.09.1988 and worked there till 20.12.1994. It is her case that she started functioning in similar capacity from 10.07.1995 in respondent No.3 institution against an aided vacancy. Complaining that her case was not being considered for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997, she approached this Court on earlier occasions. The writ petitions were disposed of directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner with reference to the said G.O. Respondent No.1 issued the impugned memo rejecting the case of the petitioner. It was mentioned that there is no proof that the petitioner worked as Part-Time Lecturer against aided vacancy between 22.09.1988 and 20.12.1994 and that the audit report of V.V. & M. Degree College, Ongole does not reflect the same. The petitioner contends that respondent No.1 has taken a hyper- technical ground and there is ample material to disclose that she functioned in V.V. & M. Degree College, Ongole as Part-Time Lecturer. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a counter-affidavit stating that the facts pleaded by the petitioner were verified with reference to the audit report of V.V. & M. Degree College, Ongole and since it was found that the name of the petitioner was not reflected therein, her was case rejected. G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997, provides for regularization of Part-Time Lecturers in aided Colleges, subject to certain conditions. One such condition is that as on 25.11.1993, the candidate must have put in five years of service as Part-Time Lecturer. A facility is created in favour of the candidates to the effect that standing of five years need not be in the same institution. It would be sufficient if the candidate has worked for such a period in more than one aided institutions. The case of the petitioner was considered by respondent No.1 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997. She worked in respondent No.3 institution only with effect from 10.07.1995. That would not make her eligible to be regularized. She has to depend upon the service said to have been rendered by her in another institution from 22.09.1988 to 20.12.1994. Respondent No.1 observed that the audit report of the said institution did not reflect the name of the petitioner. It is a pure question of fact borne out by record. The petitioner is not able to contradict the same by placing any more reliable material. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 23.12.2010. kdl