IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13217 of 2008 Between: M. Vijaya Kumari W/o Viswaanatham, R/o 1-68, Postal Colony Sarpavaram PO. Kakinada, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner & Director Collegiate Education Government of A.P., Hyderabad 2 Board of Intermediate Education, Government of A.P., Nampalli, Hyderabad, rep by its Director. 3 Smt. Pydah Andalamma Junior College Kakinada 533 003 Est Godavari District rep by its President & Correspondent. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or Writ Particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ(i) declaringthe action of the respondents in not regularizing petitioner's Post in unaided vacancy since 1985 to 9-6-1995 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust; (ii) in not regularizing petitioner's services with effect from 10-6-1995 as Junior Lecturer in English in aided post as illegal, arbtirary and unjust; (iii) and consequently direc tthe respondents to regularize petitioner's service and release all consequential benefits with effect from 10-6-1995 with a further direction to release all the benefits by duly taking into consideration of petitioner's service from 1985 to 9-6-1995 and pass such other or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13217 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in English in the 3rd respondent-junior college, in the year 1985, against an unaided vacancy. Her appointment against aided vacancy was approved by respondents 1 and 2, vide proceedings, dated 06.04.1998, with effect from the said date. The petitioner claims to have made a representation, dated 26.05.2007, with a prayer that her services be regularized with effect from 1985, by drawing certain similarities. Her grievance is that no action has been taken thereon and seeks appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. This Court would certainly have either entertained the writ petition or at least disposed it of, with a direction to respondents 1 and 2, to pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner on 26.05.2007. However, the record discloses that the services of the petitioner were regularized way back in the year 1998 and for the past 10 years, she did not take any effective steps, to protest as regards the date of regularization. At this length of time, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-open the case and claim regularization with effect from 1985. Except that it would add to unnecessary correspondence and wastage of public time, the direction, that may be issued by this Court, would not help the petitioner in any way. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________ 27.06.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13217 of 2008 Date: 27.06.2008 JSU