HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.2829 of 2011 Date: February 18, 2011 Between: G. Shakila … Petitioner And Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidyalayam (Women’s University), Tirupati, Chittoor District, rep. by its Registrar. … Respondent * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.2829 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a Senior Assistant working in the respondent Mahila Viswavidyalayam at Tirupati seeking a writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent University in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Library Assistant though she is fully qualified and eligible, as bad in law. 2. The respondent University has framed Ministerial Service Rules in 1985, in accordance with the power available under statute 5(8). These rules were brought into force with effect from 18th March 1986. Rule-I dealt with constitution of services. The ministerial services commenced with category 1 comprising of Office Superintendents and Secretary to the Vice Chancellor. In category 3, the post of Senior Assistants is included. In category 5, the posts of Junior Assistants, Store Keepers and Store Clerks are included. In category 6, the posts of Steno-Typists and Typists are included. In category 10 the post of Library Assistant is included. 3. Rule-II dealt with the ‘method of recruitment’. We are now concerned in this case with regard to method and manner of filling up the posts of Library Assistants which is incorporated in category 10. It is specifically observed in the said rules that all posts in category 10 shall be filled in, one, by direct recruitment, two, by transfer from any other category of the services. Immediately thereafter note (i) is incorporated which reads as under. “Out of every 2 posts of Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno Typists one shall be filled in by Direct Recruitment and one shall be filled in by promotion from the category of Record Assistants who have put in five years of service, if available.” Thus, note (i), to my mind, is crystal clear, inasmuch as it deals with the posts of Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno Typists and it does not deal with the posts of Library Assistants incorporated in category 10. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that out of every two vacancies of Library Assistants one has got to be filled by direct recruitment and one must be filled in by way of promotion is misconceived. 4. Note (ii) enables all internal candidates, who possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment to any posts by direct recruitment, also to apply for appointment under direct recruitment quota. The only concession that note (ii) accorded to the internal candidates is that prescription of upper age limit will not apply to internal candidates. In other words, all such internal employees of the University who possess the necessary qualifications, prescribed for direct recruitment to any post can also respond to any such notification and offer their candidature and in their cases the upper age limit will not be applicable. 5. Dealing with the method of recruitment of transfer from any other category of the service, the note incorporated in Rule IV which dealt with ‘qualifications’, concerning post of Library Assistant, made it abundantly clear that internal candidates if qualified are also eligible for appointment by recruitment to the above posts. Therefore, in my opinion the post of Library Assistant is not required to be filled in in the proportion of 1:1 between direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer. It is open to the University to decide as to which of these methods should be adopted in the matter of recruitment. The only concession which the statute provides in favour of internal candidates who possess the necessary qualifications at par with a candidate who can be recruited by the method of direct recruitment is that the restriction with regard to the upper age limit to respond to direct recruitment is not put against internal candidates. 6. Therefore, I do not see any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: February 18, 2011. BSB