THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 23909 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Junior Lecturer in Sri Padmavathi Women Degree College, Tirupathi, maintained by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (for short ‘the Devasthanam’), the 2nd respondent herein. The institution is admitted to grant-in-aid. However, it appears that the post, to which the petitioner was appointed, is not admitted to grant-in-aid. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1072, dated 26-11-1976, directing the unification of the posts of Lecturer Junior Scale/Junior Lecturer, Demonstrator into the posts of Lecturers, in the scale of pay of Rs.700/- to 1,600/-. The petitioner and certain others approached the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, the 1st respondent, and the other authorities of the Government, with a prayer to direct the Devasthanam to re-designate them as Lecturers. After prolonged correspondence, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 01-08-2000, directing that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons be re- designated as Lecturers. The matter was ultimately taken up by the Devasthanam and an order was passed on 11-12-2002, directing that the petitioner and other similarly situated Junior Lecturers be re-designated as Lecturers, notionally from the date of their initial appointment. The beneficiaries of that order gave an undertaking to the effect that they would not claim any seniority over the persons, who were appointed as Lecturers. Five years thereafter, the 1st respondent addressed letter dated 09-03-2007, to the Devasthanam, on a representation made by the petitioner, that the orders issued by him on 01-08-2000 were not implemented in the case of the petitioner and directed compliance forthwith. The Devasthanam addressed a reply dated 18-05-2007, stating that the petitioner was already re-designated as Lecturer and it would not be possible to declare her senior to the Lecturer, who came to be appointed as such, subsequent to 1977. The financial implication involved in the matter was also mentioned. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 30-03-2010, with a prayer to restore her seniority. The Devasthanam issued a reply dated 23-06- 2010, stating that such a request is not feasible for compliance. The petitioner challenges the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, and learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam. It appears that, ever since the petitioner was appointed as Junior Lecturer in the College maintained by the Devasthanam, she kept herself busy in initiating litigation of one type or the other, and in the process, making the Devasthanam busy in defending itself. She was very much aware of the fact that the advertisement was, for the post of Junior Lecturer, and one year earlier thereto, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1072, dated 26-11-1976. After prolonged correspondence and several rounds of litigation, the request of the Junior Lecturers was acceded to, and they were re-designated as Lecturers, in the year 2000. The re-designation of Junior Lecturers appointed in the year 1977 would have led to complications, vis-à-vis the individuals appointed as Lecturers, subsequent thereto. It was for this reason, that an undertaking was obtained from the Junior Lecturers to the effect that they would not claim seniority over the Lecturers appointed after 1977. The matter rested with the re-designation of the Junior Lecturers as Lecturers in the year 2002. The petitioner appears to have “convinced” the Commissioner, the 1st respondent herein, to resurrect the issue. Promptly, the 2nd respondent started his tirade against the Devasthanam. The compliance of the direction issued by him would entail not only dislocation of seniority but also in financial implication. Had the 1st respondent been prepared to bear the financial implication, there would not have been any difficulty. He appears to have become liberal with the funds of private institutions. It is to the credit of the Government, that it has prohibited appointments of Teachers in private aided institutions and thanks to its policies, spread over the past one decade, that it had encouraged only the corporate institutions and the various officials, unfortunately, from top to bottom are sparing no steps in that direction. To say the least, the letter dated 09-03-2007 addressed by the 1st respondent is irresponsible. There are no merits in the writ petition, and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.27-09-2010. KO