IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6152 of 1999 Between: D. Vishu … Petitioner AND Secretary, Education Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.V. Sarma This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6152 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner in one of the three aided SGBT posts. Heard Sri V.V. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner was initially appointed as Telugu Pandit in a leave vacancy and consequent on resignation of one Sri V.A.V. Murthy with effect from 13.11.1992, he was appointed in his place as Telugu Pandit on temporary basis. It is mentioned therein that the said order shall not confer any probationary rights over the petitioner and that he is not entitled for any Government aid. In this writ petition, the petitioner pleaded that by G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 25.01.1999, the Government of Andhra Pradesh regularized certain posts in different institutions, which include the post of Secondary Grade Teacher held by Sri B. Parvateesham. It is his case that as the said Parvateesham resigned and the post has fallen vacant, he is entitled to be considered for regular appointment against the said vacancy. The petitioner has not traced his right to any legal provision under which he is entitled to seek absorption. He did not claim to have made any representation to the management for either regularization or absorption in the regular vacancy allegedly caused on account of resignation of Sri Parvateesham. Unless the petitioner makes such a representation to the management and the management fails to accede to his request, no cause of action would arise for the petitioner to straight away approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner with liberty to him to make a representation to respondent No.3. On such representation being made, respondent No.3 shall pass an appropriate order. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order to be passed by respondent No.3, he is entitled to avail his remedies available in law. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 02.12.2008 ES