THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO W.P.Nos.27087 OF 1998 AND 19418 OF 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since these two writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner, they are taken up together for disposal. Heard Sri Mr.Venkata Ranga Das Kanuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Appaiah Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent- cavaeator in W.P.19418 of 1999 and Mr.A.Veera Swamy learned counsel for respondent in W.P.No.27087 of 1998. The common claim in these two writ petitions by the petitioner, who has been working as lecturer with the respondent institution is that having regard to the acquisition of Ph.D Qualification he would be entitled to the regular appointment and consequently all the benefits. Initially, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.27087 of 1998 stating that he applied for regular selection of appointment as Lecturer in the Engineering Geology in the year 1988. Accordingly, after the regular procedure and interview he was appointed by the proceedings dated 20-9-1998. However, in the said appointment proceedings letter it is stated that it would be on adhoc basis till his appointment is approved by the Executive Council of the University and since then he has been working as such. According to him, he secured the said Ph.D decree in the year 1996 and obtained a provisional certificate on 16-12-1996 and in spite of filing several representations for consideration, his case for regular appointment and all the benefits from 16-12-1996 onwards including the revised U.G.C scales is not considered. Hence, the writ petitions. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed the 2nd writ petition in W.P.No.19418 of 1999 alleging that since he had filed earlier writ petition in W.P.No.27087 of 1998 on 22-9-1998, as a counter blast the respondents had taken recourse to terminate his service by the proceedings dated 30-4- 1999. Hence, he filed the writ petition seeking for a Mandamus to set aside the said proceedings as it is violative of articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner in these writ petitions squarely rests on the ground that once he got Ph.D qualification in the year 1996 his case has to be considered for regular appointment, and therefore, without providing the due entitlement his case was not considered and his services were terminated illegally, and therefore, the entire proceedings are totally vitiated and liable to be set aside. Whereas the case in defence on behalf of the respondents in the counter affidavit filed by them is to the effect that the petitioner is an unqualified lecturer in Geology since the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of lecturer in Engineering college is First Class Masters Degree in the concerned subject as prescribed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 18-7-1999, whereas the petitioner is not a First Class Post Graduate Degree Holder and only a Second Class Post Graduate holder in the concerned subject, and therefore, the Selection Committee as per the proceedings dated 14-8-1998, has recommended his case for appointment on adhoc basis only, and further that he may be appointed on adhoc basis till he gets Ph.D Degree in the old U.G.C Scale of Lecturer i.e., 700-1600. In spite of the said condition, the petitioner did not choose to acquire the Ph.D qualification for several years, and therefore, the institution has already issued a letter dated 1-12-1992 proposing to terminate the services of the petitioner with effect from 1-1-1992. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed earlier a writ petition in W.P.No.16725 of 1992 and the same was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner from proper perspective and the petitioner has to satisfy the competent authority as to required qualification. Thereafter, again some correspondence went on and ultimately since the petitioner’s appointment is only on adhoc basis, his services were terminated rightly and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. On a conspectus consideration of the submissions made in detail and on perusal of the material, the only point, which arises for consideration, is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to the relief merely on the basis of acquisition of Ph.D Degree? There is no dispute to the fact that the required qualification is a Post Graduate Masters Degree in First Class, whereas the petitioner holds only Second Class. Admittedly, the petitioner’s appointment is only on adhoc basis as could be seen from the very letter of appointment, which clearly prescribes the condition that he should acquire Ph.D qualification. The petitioner has accepted the appointment and joined the services accordingly. No doubt, the petitioner acquired Ph.D qualification, but after long lapse of time. Therefore, treating the petitioner’s services as adhoc, the respondents have taken recourse to terminate him and accordingly he is no longer in service. Admittedly, when the very appointment is adhoc, no right is vested in favour of the individual nor can it be enforceable in the Court of law. It is not a case of any regular appointment nor the proceedings are for any such regular appointment. Therefore, in the absence of a valid enforceable claim being available with the petitioner, merely because of his later acquisition of Ph.D qualification, neither the petitioner can seek any relief nor this Court can show any indulgence in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merits in either of the writ petition, and both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) grk Date: 15-4-2011