IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.2262 of 1999 Between: T.Janaki Ramulu ..... PETITIONER AND S.V.Degree College, rep.by its Secretary-cum-Correspondent, Suryapet, Nalgonda District and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.2262 of 1999 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard both the counsel. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as part- time lecturer in English, he has applied for appointment in a regular vacancy pursuant to the notification dated 06.06.1998 and he was also attended for the interviews conducted on 12.12.1998, but he was not selected and therefore, the second notification was issued on 02.01.1999 inviting applications for the very self-same post which was reserved for ST/SC Men/Women. He questions the issuance of the second notification without proceeding further pursuant to the first notification. A counter has been filed stating that the petitioner was appointed as a part time lecturer on stop-gap arrangement. In so far as the notification dated 06.06.1998 is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner appeared for interview on 12.12.1998, but he secured less than 16% marks in Teaching test and as per the terms and conditions of the G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 10.01.1992, the petitioner was declared as unqualified for appointment. The petitioner once again applied for the said post pursuant to the second notification, but he did not appear for the interview scheduled to be held on 15.02.1999. As the petitioner was not selected for appointment in the interviews conducted pursuant to the first notification, the second notification was issued for the self-same post, inviting applications from the eligible candidates. The petitioner has no right to question the issuance of the second notification as none of his rights have been affected by issuing the second notification. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J __________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 12.10.2009 Dsr