THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.18505 OF 2008 O R D E R Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondent – University. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Botany in P.G. Center (Osmania) at Warangal in 1975 and in the year 1976 P.G. Center was upgraded as Kakatiya University and subsequently he was promoted as Professor. The petitioner possessed Ph.D and served for 34 years and supervised 18 Ph.D students and presented papers in national and international conferences and was also awarded Young Scientist Award in 1980 and thus the petitioner possessed the requisite qualiﬁcations, experience and served in diﬀerent capacities in the respondent – Kakatiya University and reached the age of superannuation. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 28.1.2008 providing an opportunity for re-employment of University Teachers after superannuation for a period of two years i.e., up to the age of 62 years. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 16.6.2008 to the 1st respondent – Kakatiya University represented by its Registrar. The Department of Bio-technology of Kakatiya University placed the case of the petitioner before the Committee consisting of four members on 15.7.2008 and the Committee recommended to utilize the services of the petitioner after superannuation to handle certain important subjects for M.Sc. The Head of the Department of Bio-technology, Kakatiya University, Warangal forwarded the committee resolution to the 1st respondent in Lr.No.560/Bio.Tech./KU/2008 dated 11.8.2008. The case of the petitioner is that he fulfills all the conditions stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 28.1.2008. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not considered his case for re- employment and hence sought for a direction to consider his case in the light of G.O.Ms.No.15. 3. The Registrar of the 1st respondent – University ﬁled counter aﬃdavit and while not disputing the appointment, qualiﬁcations and posts in which the petitioner served, stated inter alia that G.O.Ms.No.15 was not adapted by the University and the same is decided to be placed before the Executive Council of the University in the next meeting for its adaptation. It is stated that the issue of guidelines for re-employment of teachers was discussed by the 76th meeting of Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE)held on 21.7.2008 and it was resolved to have a re-look on the guidelines and to propose amendments to the G.O., if necessary and therefore, no decision is taken by the University in the matter of re-employment. Even before adapting the G.O.Ms.No.15 by the University, the petitioner filed representation. The Committee, which is alleged to have recommended the name of the petitioner, is not competent to make such recommendation and the Committee that would be constituted as per the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.15, is competent, to make the recommendation. Further there is no sanctioned post in the Department of Biotechnology in the respondent – University. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 4. From the above, there is no dispute with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner for being considered for re-employment as per G.O.Ms.No.15. But the case of the respondent – University is that G.O.Ms.No.15 has not been adapted by the University and in the 76th meeting of Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE) held on 21.7.2008 it was resolved to have a re- look on the guidelines and to propose amendments to the G.O. if necessary and that no decision is taken by the University, in the matter of re-employment of teachers in the University. The further case of the respondent – University is that the Committee which is alleged to have recommended the name of the petitioner is not competent to do so and further there is also no sanctioned post in the Department of the Biotechnology. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances and as the representation of the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondents, suﬃce it dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The respondents shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.6.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. AVS --------------------------------------- -- 24—09—2008