IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.25338 of 2001 Date:26.11.2010 Between: Dr. Sabina Nasreen .....Petitioner AND Osmania University, rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad. ....Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.25338 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner seeking for issuance of writ or directions in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (1) to implement the order dated 04.09.1990 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8203 of 1989, (2) to declare that the petitioner is qualified to be appointed as Lecturer by the date of her previous appointment dated 05.06.1989, (3) to compel the respondent to treat the petitioner as Lecturer in Urdu with effect from 05.06.1989 with all consequential benefits of promotion to the post of Reader and Professor with all consequential benefits. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that she and another by name Dr. Tatar Khan were appointed as Lecturers in Urdu by order No.266/45/88-Admn.II-1 dated 05.06.1989 by the respondent-University. The unsuccessful candidate in the said selection by name Dr. Razia Siddiqui has filed W.P.No.8203 of 1989 before this Court questioning the appointment of the petitioner and another Dr. Tatar Khan and the said Writ Petition was allowed and the order issued by the University vide proceedings No.266/45/88-Admn.2-1 dated 05.06.1989 appointing the respondents 2 and 3 therein were set aside and observed that it is open for the respondent-University to take an appropriate action and notify the posts afresh inviting the applications from all the qualified and eligible candidates and proceed with the selection in accordance with law. Now according to the petitioner, she was appointed as a part-time Lecturer in view of her qualification on 24.08.1998. According to the petitioner, she was awarded Ph.D in the year 1992 and had her appointment by order dated 05.06.1989 continued she could have drawn scale of a Reader on completion of her eight years of service from 05.06.1997. Since she is being taken as a part-time Lecturer from time to time by the respondent- University, she is requesting to appoint her on regular basis and issue necessary direction to the respondent- University to appoint her as a Lecturer in Urdu with effect from the date of her selection i.e., 05.06.1989 with all consequential benefits. The respondent filed a counter contending that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8203 of 1989, the University by order dated 28.07.1987 removed the petitioner and other person appointed as Lecturers in Urdu under earlier order dated 05.06.1989. The respondent-University has notified the posts of Lecturers in the Department of Urdu along with other Departments in the year 1993, but the said process was delayed on account of pendency of Writ Petition before this Court. The selections were finally made during the year 1996. There is no violation of any of the orders passed by this Court in respect of the petitioner. There is no disobedience of the orders of this Court. Therefore, as per the order of this Court, the University has issued fresh notification and selected the candidates in the year 1996. Now the petitioner’s counsel has pleaded that as she appointed as a part-time Lecturer and as she is having required qualification for being appointed as Lecturer, she ought to have been appointed as Lecturer with effect from the original order dated 05.06.1989. Since the appointment of the petitioner as Urdu Lecturer dated 05.06.1989 was set aside by this Court, she cannot claim to be appointed as a Lecturer from that date once again on the ground she is having required qualifications. More over, the respondents were pleaded in their counter that the selection was made already and it has been pleaded by the petitioner that she was appointed as part-time Lecturer in view of her qualifications. It is the duty of the Selection Committee to appoint the Lecturers for the respondents depending upon their qualifications and performance and when once the appointment of the petitioner was set aside, she cannot be directed to be appointed as a Lecturer by this Court. The plea of the petitioner that the respondent has not implemented the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8203 of 1989 dated 04.09.1990 cannot be accepted in view of the contentions raised in the counter filed by the respondent. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that the order passed in W.P.No.8203 of 1989 is not implemented, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps for implementation of the order in the said Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs as claimed by her. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs. ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD,J November 26, 2010 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.25338 of 2001 Date: 26.11.2010 Gk.