THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.840 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per GM,J) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 9-12-2003 passed in WP No.1603 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in the second respondent College in Chemistry Department in a leave vacancy of one C.Venkataiah as per the guidelines laid down in G.O.Ms.No.905, Education Department dated 21-09-1976. After expiry of leave, the said Venkataiah joined duty on 23-07-1985. However, the petitioner continued in the Chemistry Department against an un- aided vacancy due to work load. Subsequently, the second respondent College issued the notification inviting the applications to fill up the vacancy. Subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in an aided vacancy in the Junior College. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she is entitled for being continued as a Lecturer in the Degree Section in view of the fact that she was appointed as per the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.905, dated 21-09-1976. Further, similar situated persons approached this Court by filing writ petitions for regularization of their services and the same were allowed directing the authorities concerned for regularization of their services in the cadre of Lecturers in Degree Section. The Government as well as the Correspondent of the 2nd respondent College filed counters denying the averments made in the writ petition and stating that the petitioner is not eligible as she did not work in any aided vacancy for the period claimed by her for regularization. Further, the petitioner cannot claim any relief with reference to other persons who had approached this Court since their cases were considered by the Government basing on their individual merits. It is also stated that the petitioner is working as a Junior Lecturer against an aided vacancy from 7-10- 1994 in the second respondent college and therefore, she is not entitled for the relief as sought for. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner worked only for about an year in the leave vacancy and thereafter, she was continued as such in an un-aided vacancy and therefore, no right is accrued to her for being continued in an aided vacancy and that the petitioner has already been absorbed on regular basis in the 2nd respondent College with effect from 7- 10-1994 in the Junior College, dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-appellant contended that the Lecturers, who were appointed in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.905 by the Selection Committee, are entitled to be appointed on regular basis. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in D.G.Krishnamacharyulu and others v. Government of A.P. and others[1], wherein it is held as under: “I am of the opinion that those teachers who have been selected following the procedure of selection should be treated as regularly filling the posts notwithstanding the fact that their appointments were described as temporary or adhoc on the assumption that the Jaganmohan Reddy Committee report should be made into law immediately. That assumption has been belied by the failure of the State to enact the College Service Commission Act till the year 1985. I, therefore, think it unjust to treat these posts as being vacant notwithstanding the fact that there have been substantial compliance with the existing law in the matter of their appointments.” Learned counsel also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in “The Principal The Besant Thesophical College, Madanapally, Chittoor District vs., S.Jahanara Begum and others”[2]. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education contended that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to be appointed on regular basis because her appointment itself is on leave vacancy and therefore, the question of treating the said appointment as a regular basis does not arise. Now the point for consideration is as to whether the appointment of the petitioner can be treated as regular basis or not? A perusal of the record goes to show that the petitioner was initially appointed in a leave vacancy. Subsequently, she was appointed in an aided vacancy in the Junior College. The claim of the petitioner is that she is entitled to be considered as a regular permanent lecturer of the 2nd respondent-College as she was appointed as per the guidelines laid down in G.O.Ms.No.905. In view of the law enunciated in the judgments cited supra and in similar set of circumstances, this Court held that when a candidate was selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee after due interview conducted pursuant to the advertisement issued by the authority and continued in service, such a person must be taken to have been appointed on a permanent basis. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on regular basis from the date of initial appointment. It is made clear that if the appointment of the petitioner is regularized, she is entitled to seniority and other consequential benefits, but without monetary benefits. In the result, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J rkk Dated: 11-10-2011 [1] 1988(2)ALT237 [2] 1990 (2) (HC)