IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1588 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/09/0208 in WP NO : 3905 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The University of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND Smt. C. Geetha, W/o. G. Kamalakar, University of Hyderabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CHALLASIVASANKAR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the interim order passed in W.P.M.P. No.5100 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No. 1471 of 2008 in W.P.No. 3905 of 2008, this appeal has been filed by the original respondent-University. The original petitioner was promoted to the post of Documentation Officer on purely temporary basis by an order dated 14- 7-2005. Upon perusal of the said order, it is crystal clear that the original petitioner was appointed “for a period of two years or until the regular incumbent who is on leave rejoins for duty whichever is earlier.” In view of the above fact, it is clear that the promotion given to the original petitioner was not a regular promotion, but it was purely temporary and adhoc. By virtue of the said adhoc promotion, the original petitioner did not get any right to continue in the cadre of Documentation Officer. It has been fairly submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that the posts of Documentation Officer and Assistant Librarian are equal and, therefore, as and when the post of Assistant Librarian is to be filled up by way of promotion, case of the original petitioner shall be duly considered. In view of the above submission made by the learned Advocate for the appellant, in our opinion, interest of the original petitioner shall be duly protected. As stated hereinabove, the original petitioner has no right to continue in the cadre of Documentation Officer by virtue of the adhoc appointment given to her by an order dated 14-7-2005 and, therefore, by virtue of the impugned order of the learned single Judge, the original petitioner could not have been continued in the cadre beyond the period for which she had been appointed by an order dated 14-7-2005. For the aforestated reasons, the impugned interim order is quashed and set aside. The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th December, 2008. GRR