IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16525 of 2008 Between: B.V.R. Mallikarjun Rao S/o. B. Panduranga Rao R/o. 10-1-18/44, Shyamnagar Colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad,. ..... PETITIONER AND The University of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the employment notiﬁcation NO. UH/P-1/A3/Rectt.2007 (3) NT dt. 20-12-2007 issued by the Respondent for ﬁlling the post of the Programmer by direct Recruitment as illegal, arbitrary untenable contrary to the recommendations of the Stagnation Committee dt. 22-6-2006 violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same in so far as the post of Programmer is concerned and pass Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.C.SRINIVASA BABAW/C-VAK Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.R.N.PRASHANTH The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16525 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Junior Programmer in the University of Hyderabad. By now, he is said to have put in about 12 years of service. The University issued employment notiﬁcation, dated 20.12.2007, inviting applications for various posts, including that of Programmers. The petitioner states that he has rendered 12 years of service as Junior Programmer and is entitled to be promoted to the post of Programmer. He places reliance upon the report, dated 22.06.2006, of the Committee constituted for review of the promotion policy. He further states that the University itself has eﬀected promotions against several vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment and the petitioner is discriminated in the process. The respondents ﬁled counter aﬃdavit denying the allegation of the petitioner. It is stated that according to the relevant service rules, the appointment to the post of Programmer is exclusively by way of direct recruitment and there is no provision for appointment by way of promotion of Junior Programmers. It is also stated that when the ban imposed by the Central Government on appointments in the University was in operation, two Junior Programmers were promoted on ad hoc basis as Programmers and the same cannot be treated as a precedent. It is further stated that the recommendation of the review committee did not result in any modiﬁcation of the relevant rule and the petitioner cannot claim promotion to the post of Programmer. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the relevant service rules provide for appointment to the post of Programmer only through direct recruitment. Though the Review Committee made a recommendation in the year 2006, to the eﬀect that the vacancies under direct recruitment quota be ﬁlled by promotion, neither any policy decision was taken accepting it, nor the relevant rule was amended. Unless the relevant service rule is amended, a diﬀerent method of appointment cannot be resorted to. It may be true that a few ad hoc promotions were made to the post of Programmer from the category of Junior Programmers, at a time, when the ban on direct recruitment was operating. Even these appointments cannot be countenanced, once the ban is lifted. Obviously, necessary reversions have to be ordered, once the direct recruitment is undertaken. It is not as if the University is oblivious to the lack of promotional avenues to the post of Junior Programmer. Through a notiﬁcation, dated 07.01.2008, the University allowed accelerated increments, for such of the employees, who have stagnated in the same posts for 12 years and the petitioner was extended such beneﬁt, through order, dated 31.01.2008. Therefore, this Court does not ﬁnd any basis to accede to the request of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 28.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16525 of 2008 Date: 28.08.2008 JSU