THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITIN No.7676 of 2001 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondents in passing the impugned proceedings dated 16.12.1999 as arbitrary, illegal and as being contrary to the judgment in W.P. No.17438 of 1989 dated 19.08.1998. A direction is sought to the respondents to pay all consequential benefits from the date of the initial appointment. The petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk in the traffic department of the respondent Port Trust with effect from 03.12.1981. Her services were terminated with effect from 01.06.1984 on the ground that she failed to acquire the prescribed educational qualifications for the post of clerk as per the rules prescribed for compassionate appointment in the Port Trust. Pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court, in W.P.M.P. No.23102 of 1989 in W.P. No.17438 of 1989, the petitioner was reinstated into service. The said Writ Petition was, thereafter, finally disposed of by order dated 19.08.1998 wherein this Court held that since the interim direction was only to consider reinstatement of the petitioner in accordance with the rules, and as the respondents had already considered and reinstated the petitioner, there was no need to decide the Writ Petition on its merits. In the earlier Writ Petition i.e., W.P. No.17438 of 1989, the relief sought for was to declare the action of the respondents, in not considering the case of the petitioner for reinstatement, as arbitrary and illegal; to direct the Visakhapatnam Port Trust to reinstate the petitioner into service with retrospective effect and to consider her service, without insisting on acquisition of the requisite qualifications which were exempted at the time of appointment itself, with consequential benefits. The Writ Petition was disposed of without examining the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be continued in service despite not possessing the prescribed qualifications in as much as she was reinstated into service pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court. In their counter affidavit, the respondents would submit that the petitioner was, in fact, a married sister of the deceased employee of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, and was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds; she did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of clerk, and her initial appointment was conditional; and, as she did not fulfil the conditions stipulated at the time of her initial appointment of acquiring the prescribed qualification within the specified period, her services were terminated and, while she was reinstated into service, she was not entitled for the benefit of continuity of service for the period of her termination. The averments in the counter- affidavit are not controverted by way of a reply affidavit and, as such, necessitates acceptance. Further, the petitioner having sought a similar relief, of the respondents not to insist upon fulfillment of the qualifications, in the earlier Writ Petition cannot re-agitate the very same issue in the present writ proceedings. Viewed from any angle, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 09.12.2010 MRKR