HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4250 of 2010 Dated: 06-04-2010 Between: P.Jagan Naik & another. … Petitioners And Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur, rep. by its Registrar & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4250 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners, two in number, seek directions to the respondents by way of Mandamus, to declare the result of the interviews conducted by the respondents to fill up the backlog posts of Assistant Professors in the departments of Zoology and Chemistry, pursuant to the notification, dated 11.10.2006, issued in Notification No.SKU/EEI/ Backlog/2006. 2. The 1st respondent-University has issued Notification No.SKU/EEI/Backlog/2006, dated 11.10.2006, as a measure of special recruitment drive to fill up the backlog vacancies of Assistant Professors, reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. The petitioners have applied for the said posts and they were interviewed. At that point of time, some individuals have approached this Court and questioned the notification by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.11160 of 2007. Mainly, it was the case of the petitioners therein that the posts of Assistant Professors reserved for Scheduled Tribe community are more than the percentage of their quota. It is also stated that the petitioners herein have filed implead applications in the above said writ petition, but when the writ petition came up for consideration on 10th February 2010, it was represented on behalf of the University that it has decided to issue a fresh notification. Therefore, the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn, by recording the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of the University to the effect that the University has decided to issue a fresh notification. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners that having interviewed them pursuant to the earlier notification, there is no reason for not announcing the results. 3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the earlier notification was issued to fill up the backlog vacancies of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities, taking into consideration the orders of Government, issued in G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 05.03.1983, in which, roster point Nos.8, 17, 33, 42, 58, 67, 83 and 92 are reserved for Scheduled Tribe category, which comes to 7.5%. It is further stated that later, the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 15.02.1997, amending Rule 22 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, reserving only 6% vacancies for Scheduled Tribe community. As per the said G.O., roster point Nos.8 (w), 25, 33, 58(w), 75 and 83 were earmarked for Scheduled Tribe community. 4. It is to be noted that 7.5% reservation for Scheduled Tribe community was already reduced to 6% even by the time the earlier notification was issued. In that view of the matter, the University has taken a decision to issue the notification afresh. Merely because the petitioners were interviewed pursuant to earlier notification, no rights will accrue to them to seek for a Writ of Mandamus for announcement of results. In the earlier notification, when the roster points are not correctly culminated as per the Rules in force, it is always open for the University to issue a fresh notification. In any event, the petitioners, who have also filed implead applications in the earlier writ petition, which was withdrawn by the University, cannot seek for any directions for announcement of results, particularly when the University has already decided to go for a fresh notification by restricting the number of vacancies to be reserved for Scheduled Tribe community, as per the Rules in force. In that view of the matter, the University cannot be faulted with, and no case is made out by the petitioners for grant of directions for announcement of results. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th April 2010 ajr