IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.20696 OF 2011 Date:27.07. 2011 Between:- D.Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry .. Petitioner And The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of respondent No.2 vide Rc.No.D1/1372/Acad/2011, dated 30.05.2011, and the action of respondents in not renewing the services of the petitioner as Guest Lecturer in respondent No.4 institution for the academic year 2011- 2012 as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, set aside the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Guest Lecturer in Mathematics subject for the academic year 2009-2010 in respondent No.4 College. Due to good performance, he was appointed as Scrutinizer for Theory for Maths subject for Intermediate Public Examinations held in the months of March and June, 2010 by the Board of Intermediate Education and his services were also continued for the academic year 2010-2011. Again the Board of Intermediate Education appointed him as Examiner for Theory IPE for the months of March and June, 2011 for Maths subject. Thus, the petitioner completed the service of Guest Lecturer for two academic years in respondent No.4 College. The petitioner was waiting for renewal of appointment for the present academic year 2011-2012. On 30.05.2011, respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings wherein it was directed that in case of Guest Teachers, whose performance is less than 80% pass in Gurukulam Schools and colleges in their respective subjects, their services shall not be taken for the current academic year. Due to the impugned proceedings, the case of petitioner was not considered for renewal or continuation or re- appointment as Guest Lecturer for this academic year 2011-2012. A notification was issued calling for applications and for personal appearance on 04.07.2011 for appointment of Guest Lecturers in various subjects. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner made an application and appeared for interview and demonstration classes. The petitioner was informed that he was selected and his services will be renewed and continued for the academic year 2011-2012. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 issued further notification for appointment of Guest Lecturers fixing the date of appearance as 12.07.2011. The petitioner also appeared on that day before the selection committee but the respondents failed to respond on the ground that due to the impugned proceedings of respondent No.2, he is not entitled to renewal and for fresh appointment. Under the impugned proceedings, the respondents imposed a stringent condition of pass of 80% students in concerned subject to assess the performance of the concerned subject Lecturer. The performance of the Lecturers can be assessed by the selection committee by conducting interviews and demonstration classes but cannot be assessed depending upon the performance of the students. Respondent No.1 issued the guidelines for renewal of contract lecturers in the Government colleges from time to time, and in the said guidelines, it was specifically stated that if the services of the Lecturer are good, his services should be renewed. If the services were not good, the said antecedents/remarks would have been intimated in the said academic year itself. Thus, if no adverse antecedents are reported in the academic year, his service should be renewed for next academic year. Temporary employee is to be replaced only by a permanent employee. Therefore, it is necessary to continue the petitioner as Guest Lecturer in the respondent No.4 College till the permanent appointments are made. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the first notification, dated 04.07.2011, he applied for the post of Guest Lecturer and he was successful in interview but he was not selected in view of the impugned proceedings passed by respondent No.2, and that he also applied for the said post in pursuance of the second notification but the respondents have not considered his case. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that the posts are meant for schedule tribe candidates and in case of non- availability of schedule tribe candidates, the other candidates will be selected; that the circular is only internally issued to all Project Officers of the Integrated Tribal Development Authority and therefore, there is no infringement of right of the petitioner. 5. In pursuance of the second notification, the petitioner appeared before the selection committee but the selection committee did not consider his case on the ground of issuance of the impugned proceedings. The case of respondents herein is that the petitioner is not entitled to fresh appointment. That cannot be a ground for rejecting the case of the petitioner. The respondents ought to have interviewed him for the purpose of making selection for the post of Guest Lecturer. Therefore, for this purpose, the petitioner shall make a representation to the respondents subject to availability of the posts of Guest Lecturers and on making such a representation, appropriate decision has to be taken by the respondents in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the recruitment conditions of that post. 5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 27th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.20696 OF 2011 Date:27.07.2011 AMD