HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.23318 of 1995 MONDAY, THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 Between: V.Padmakar ….PETITIONER(S) and State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Bldgs., Hyderabad and others …RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.23318 of 1995 ORDER: (PER SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in Telugu and for a consequential direction to regularize his services as Lecturer in Telugu from the date of his appointment with all consequential benefits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. It appears that pursuant to the advertisement given by the 3rd respondent calling for the applications for the temporary adhoc post of Lecturer in Telugu, the petitioner submitted his application, that he was selected and appointed as per the orders issued on 03.09.1993 on a consolidated salary of Rs.1000/- per month, and that he joined in the said post on 06.09.1993. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is stated that the petitioner was not appointed in a regular post by following the due procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.12 Education (CE.I-2) Department dated 10.01.1992. It is also stated that the petitioner, in fact, had applied for the temporary post and he was appointed purely on temporary basis and, therefore, his appointment cannot be treated as a regular post of Lecturer in Telugu. In so far as the other contention of the petitioner that a regular post of the Junior Lecturer in the 3rd respondent college fell vacant and, therefore, he is entitled for regularization of his service in the said post, is concerned, it is the case of the respondents that the Government has got every right to transfer the surplus aided Lecturers who were appointed on regular basis against aided vacancies and as there was a vacancy in the 3rd respondent college, the surplus Lecturer available in other college has been posted to 3rd respondent college and, therefore, the petitioner has no right against the aided vacancy in the 3rd respondent college. In view of the aforesaid contentions, we are of the opinion that the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Telugu in the 3rd respondent college was made purely on temporary basis in the temporary adhoc posts, on a consolidated pay, and his appointment was not made in accordance with the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.12 Education (CE.I-2) Department dated 10.01.1992, and, therefore, he is not entitled for regularization of the service as sought for. The writ petition is, therefore, 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 12th OCTOBER 2009 KPR/CVRK