IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12090 of 2008 Between: G. Santhosh Reddy S/o. G.Ram Reddy J.N.T.U.College of fine Arts, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Registrar, Jawaharlal nehru Technological University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 2 The Principal J.N.T.U. College of Fine Arts, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 Yadagiri, President of J.N.T.U., Class IV Ministerial Staff Association of J.N.T.U. Campus and working as Superintendent, J.N.T.U. Campus, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 4 Sri m.A.S.Giri General Secretary, J.N.T.U. IV Ministerial Staff Association of JNTU. Campus and working as Senior Assistant, JNTU.Compus ( Establishment Section ), Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 5 S. Lakshminarayana Junior Assistant, JNTU., C.F.A., Nasab Tank, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for the records pertains to the impugnmed proceedings Memo No.C3/7737/2008(2) dated 23.05.2008 along with service records of the respondets no.3 to 5 adn quash the impugned proceedings dated 23.05.2008 and consequently direct the 1st respondent as per the seniority list prepared and issue by the 1st respondent in respect of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SAI RAM GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12090 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have been initially appointed as Temporary Care Taker in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, in September 1987. He passed S.S.C. in March 1984. Vide orders, dated 30.11.1989, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant. Subsequently, he passed B.A. on 23.11.1994 and was promoted as Senior Assistant on 12.08.2005. In the seniority list for the post of Junior Assistant published on 18.03.1996, the petitioner was shown at serial No.67. The University issued a show cause notice, dated 24.05.2008, to the petitioner, to explain as to why his seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistant shall not be fixed with effect from 23.11.1994, on which date, he acquired B.A. Degree. It was pointed out that according to G.O.Ms.No.517, General Administration (Services-B) Department, dated 29.10.1987, the qualification for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant is Intermediate, and the petitioner was appointed to that post on 30.11.1989, though he did not hold the requisite qualification. The petitioner, on the one hand, submitted explanation on 02.06.2008 and on the other, filed this writ petition, assailing the show cause notice. He contends that the G.O. itself carves out an exception in case of employees, who were working prior to October 1987, and that he is covered by the said exception. The respondents filed a counter affidavit raising an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition itself. The show cause notice is sought to be justified on merits also. Heard Sri Sai Ram Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the University and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5. The challenge in this writ petition is to a show cause notice. Writ petition, against a show cause notice, can be entertained, if only, it is pointed out that the notice is issued by an authority, who is not vested with the power, or that it is in flagrant violation of any specific provision of law. No such grounds are pleaded. Even assuming that the date of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant cannot be altered, in view of the clauses contained in the G.O., it is a matter for being raised by the petitioner and considered by respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to put forward all his contentions; and respondents 1 and 2, in turn, shall examine the plea raised by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 18.07.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12090 of 2008 Date: 18.07.2008 JSU