THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27073 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner approached this Court on an earlier occasion complaining that he was denied promotion to the post of Superintendent and relief was granted by a Division Bench of this Court. Accordingly, he was promoted as Superintendent. Thereafter, he filed W.P.No.24888 of 2011 with a prayer to declare the action of the respondent-University in not complying with the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules”) in the context of promotion to the posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar as illegal and arbitrary. Through a detailed order dated 08.09.2011, this Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the matter pertaining to the promotion to the posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar is governed by A.P. Agricultural University (Administrative and Accounts Officers) Services Regulations framed in the year 1981 by the University in exercise of powers under Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963. Through this writ petition, he has now challenged the very Regulations framed by the University and wants the promotion to the said posts to be made, by applying Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules. He places reliance upon Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, and Sri T. Durga Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the University. The petitioner does not dispute that the University is conferred with the power to frame Regulations. The grounds pointed out by him for challenging the Regulations are frivolous and none of them are referable to any settled principles of law. He proceeds on the assumption that the services in the Universities are governed by Article 309 of the Constitution of India. A reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition discloses that the petitioner felt himself to be conversant with the entire gamut of service law, because he obtained degree in Bachelor of Law. The tone and tenor of the affidavit is objectionable. W.P.No.24888 of 2011 filed by him, in this very context, was dismissed in the recent past. If he felt aggrieved by that order, he could have preferred a writ appeal. However, he has chosen to file this writ petition as though, it is either continuation of the earlier writ petition or an appeal against the order passed therein. This Court notices that the petitioner is reeling under the impression that he is the most meritorious among the administrative staff of the University and that the University is denying itself, the services of such a person. Another grievance of the petitioner appears to be that in the organization, which he left more than a decade ago, his contemporaries are working at higher places. It is not as if the petitioner joined the services of the University as a Scientist in a rare field of research. His entry into the service was Stenographer, and with each passing day, he is feeling that he has crossed all barriers of excellence and merit, and was unnecessarily denied his rise to the top executive position. If one takes into account the manner in which the petitioner pursued the proceedings in the recent past, a serious doubt would arise, as to whether he is paying any attention to the service in the University at all. In the Court also, the manner of his presentation was very objectionable. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:28.09.2011. lvl/ko THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27073 of 2011 Dt. 28.09.2011