IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.5791 of 2001 Between: A.Usha Devi, W/o.J.Manohar Rao, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And The Registrar, Osmania University, Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.5791 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue appointment orders to the petitioner by implementing G.O.Rt.No.1140, dated 05.11.1999 issued by the Government. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that pursuant to the notification No.2/96 and 3/96, filling up of 7 positions in the department of Linguistics, the petitioner applied and appeared for interview on 22.08.1997. Thereafter, orders were issued for most of the positions but she reliably learnt that she was selected in the interview but no appointment orders were issued. Therefore, she approached the respondent and she was informed that the selections made for Linguistics were not ratified by the Executive Committee on the ground that there was no work load. It is further submitted that she filed W.P. No.9107 of 1998 seeking direction to the respondent to issue appointment order in pursuance to the interview conducted on 22.08.1997 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 21.04.1998 directing that the selections made by the Selection Committee to the post of Professor in Linguistics on 22.08.997 shall be considered by the Executive Council and appropriate orders be passed, in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Universities Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, with regard to the appointment of selected candidates. It is further submitted that as per Section 9(5)(ii) of the A.P. Universities Act, if the Executive Council rejects the selections made by the Selection Committee, the matter shall be referred to the Government and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Government and the Government reconsidered the issue in the light of the orders passed by this Court and issued G.O.Rt.No.1140, dated 05.11.1999, permitting the respondent making appointments in the department of Linguistics in pursuance of Notification No.3/96 in respect of the candidates who were selected in the interviews. It is further submitted that thereafter, the petitioner submitted number of representations to the respondent requesting to implement the orders of the Government passed in G.O.Rt.No.1140, dated 05.11.1999, but the respondent did not take any action in the matter. Hence, the present writ petition. Though the matter is of the year 2001, no counter has been filed denying the averments of the petitioner. From a perusal of the record it is obvious that pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent, the petitioner applied and attended for interview and thereafter she reliably came to know that she was selected but due to non ratification by the Executive Council, the matter was referred to the Government. In the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.9107 of 1998, filed by the petitioner, the Government reconsidered the issue and passed G.O.Rt.No.1140, dated 05.1.1999, permitting the respondent to make appointments. Thereafter, the petitioner stated to have been made several representations to the respondent to implement the said G.O.Rt.No.1140, dated 05.11.1999 but the respondent did not take any action. The instant writ petition has been filed only seeking a direction to the respondent to issue appointment orders to the petitioner by implementing the said G.O.Rt.No.1140, dated 05.11.1999. Though the writ petition is of the year 2001, no material is made available by the respondent denying the claim of the petitioner or reason there for and from a perusal of the G.O.Rt.No.1140, dated 05.11.1999, filed in support of this writ petition, it is categorically permitted the respondent for making appointments in the department of Linguistics in pursuance of the notification No.3 of 1996 in respect of the candidates, who were selected in the interview. Therefore, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for implementation of G.O.Rt.No.1140, dated 05.11.1999 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 25.11.2010 LSK