IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13483 of 2008 Between: Smt.S.Ramana Devi W/o.Polappa Kalasamudram ,Kadiri,Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (Regd) , rep.by its Chairman, Hyderabad 2 Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (Regd), rep.by its Secretary, Hyderabad .....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 not following the Revised Integrated State-Wide Final Seniority list of Junior Lecturers vide Procqs.Rc.No.G1/3867(JL)/2006 dated 13.6.2008 in filling of the Principal post and also not issuing the call letter to the petitioner for interviews dated 26.6.2008 onwards as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles, 14,15 and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to follow the Revised Integrated State-wide Final Seniority list of Junior Lecturers vide Procqs.Rc.No.G1/3867(JL)/2006 dated 13.6.2008 in filling of the principal post in Respondent Society without putting any further restrictions to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KUNCHEAMMAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in Zoology in the first respondent-society. In the recent past, the first respondent issued seniority list of Junior Lecturers in the institution vide proceedings, dated 13.06.2008. The petitioner figured at Serial No.4. The steps are initiated for appointment of Principals to various institutions in the society. About 42 vacancies exist as of now and the candidates are to be invited to the interview at the ratio of 1:3. In the normal course, the petitioner, who figures at Serial No.4 in the seniority list, deserves to be invited and considered for selection. The respondents, however, did not invite the petitioner to the interview, on the ground that she does not hold B.Ed. qualification. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider her case by inviting her to the interview. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is true that the petitioner figures at a fairly high position in the seniority list, and as such, she would be entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal. The fact, however, remains that the Rules prescribed that a candidate must possesses B.Ed. qualification or its equivalent, apart from being a Post Graduate and that the petitioner does not hold the B.Ed. qualification. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in not inviting the petitioner to the interview. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application filed by his client seeking permission to pursue B.Ed. Course is pending. The respondents cannot keep such an application pending indefinitely. They are directed to consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:27.06.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}