IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12198 of 2008 Between: 1 A. Sreenivasulu S/o Late A. narasimhulu 28/181, Boya Street, Old Town Ananthapur 2 B. Nagaraja Naik S/o B. lakshmi Naik Chettipalli Post Sambepalli mandal, kadapa District. 3 D. Radha Krishna Reddy S/o D.Venkateswamy Reddy Laksmi Nagar Kovur Post & Mandal Nellore District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Sri Krishna Devaraya University Ananthapur, rep by its Registrar. 2 The Vice Chanceller, Sri Krishna Devaraya University, Ananthapur. 3 University College of Engineering and Technology Sri Krishna Devaraya University, Ananthapur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to fill up faculty positions in the 3rd respondent college, vide Notification dated 05-06-2008 published in Sakhi" on 06-06-2008 as perse illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Statutory provisions under the A.P. Universities act 1991, G.O.Ms. No. 94 dated 28-03-2003 and Art. 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to create the faculty positions in the 3rd respondent college and fill up the same as per the procedure prescribed in A.P. universities Act 1991 and pass such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.M.RAMALINGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: The first respondent University issued a notification, dated 05.06.2008, indicating that a walk-in-interview would be conducted on 15.06.2008 for selection of the candidates to the faculty positions. The notification further states that the rule of reservation would be followed and that details are available on the web site. The petitioners intended to appear in the interview and accordingly, logged on to the web site. The information in the web site also is silent as to the category of post, the roster points at which they occur and number of vacancies. The grievance of the petitioners is that unless the necessary particulars are furnished, they would not be in a position to know whether or not to apply and, if so to which post. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the University, at the admission stage. The intention of the University appears to be to make appointments to various posts in the University College of Engineering and Technology, without loss of time. However, being a creature of a statute, it was supposed to ensure objectivity in several respects. The notification as well as the information on the web site is cryptic and brief. Both of them are silent about the nature of posts, number of vacancies and their positions in the roster. When it was mentioned that the rule of reservation would be followed, mentioning all the relevant particulars would enable the candidates of the concerned categories to present their cases. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notification is set aside. It is left open to the University to issue fresh notification furnishing the particulars of; (a) the relevant posts which are sought to be filled up on contractual basis; (b) the number of vacancies in each category; and (c) the roster points at which they occur, duly indicating the category for which the post is earmarked in the roster. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:13.06.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}