HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.15785 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not considering the appointment of the writ petitioner as Lecturer cum Assistant Director against the post of Reader cum Deputy Director even though the Executive Council passed resolution Dt.09.06.2009 approving his appointment and also which is in accordance with the rules and regulations of SV University, Tirupati, which are being followed by the 1st respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that he has completed his Master Degree in Social Sciences in the year 1998 and Ph.D in the same subject in the year 2008. The 1st respondent herein issued a notification No.SKU/EEII/2008, dated 22.10.2008 published in several news papers on 26.10.2008 calling for applications from the eligible candidates for various teaching and non teaching positions in the UGC Scheme of “Centre for study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy” on temporary basis till the end of the scheme. He submitted his application as he was having essential qualifications required by the 1st respondent for which a call letter was issued to him on 15.05.2009 to be present with all his relevant originals on 03.06.2009. He attended the interview and produced all the certificates required by the 1st respondent. On 11.6.2009 the 1st respondent issued proceedings No.SKU/T.Estt/EEII/2009 dated 11.06.2009 appointing him as Lecturer cum Assistant Director as the selection committee has approved his appointment. The Executive Committee also resolved to consider the appointments made by the Selection committee for the various posts in the UGC sponsored scheme. On the basis of his application for the post of Lecturer cum Assistant Director, he was given appointment against the post of Reader cum Deputy Director by the 1st respondent as per relevant rules. From the date of his appointment, he has been doing his research programme in the said scheme and submitting his regular reports to the 2nd respondent. For the post of the petitioner as Lecturer cum Assistant Director, the 3rd respondent revised the pay scale to an amount of Rs.37,500/- approximately inclusive of all deductions which was also approved by the State Government. The first respondent after taking his services has not been paying his salary regularly from the month of June, 2010 to till date. He approached the 1st respondent every month and also sent his request orally through the 2nd respondent with regard to the non-payment of his salary. All his requests were not considered for which reason he constrained to file the present writ petition. 3. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit denying the material averments in the writ petition and stating, inter alia, as follows: University Grants Commission has sanctioned a centre for study of social exclusion and inclusive policy vide its proceedings No.F.3- 2/2008 (SCT), dated 26.3.2008, whereunder, grant in aid from the UGC, would be received under the scheme for various posts only up to 31.3.2012 ie., up to the end of the XI Plan period. In accordance with the said approval, the University has to fill up posts initially for a period of five years on tenure basis only by following rule of reservation. The University issued walk-in-interview notification dated 22.10.2008, mentioning various posts by inviting applications only on temporary basis till the end of the scheme i.e., 31.3.2012, and interviews were conducted under the chairmanship of the Vice Chancellor. The writ petitioner and one Dr.Naga Narayana applied for the posts of Assistant Director/Lecturer (Assistant Professors), but however, they were selected as Assistant Professors, against the post of Deputy Directors/Readers, though, they were called for interviews before the Selection Committee for the posts of Assistant Professors. The University had issued appointment orders dated 11.6.2009 vide proceedings No.SKU/T.Estt./EEII/2009, appointing the writ petitioner as Lecturer-cum-Assistant Director against the post of Reader-cum- Deputy Director in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500. In the appointment orders it is clearly mentioned that the University has got every right to terminate the candidate as and when the funds ceases from UGC, New Delhi. In pursuance of the report of the Justice Sri A.Hanumanthu Committee, which was appointed to examine into certain allegations against Prof.Kusuma Kumari, Vice Chancellor, and G.O.Ms.No.203 Higher Education Department, dated 22.10.2010 issued in pursuance of the said report, the excess appointments made by the University were placed before the Executive Council Meeting held on 08.11.2010 and Executive Council resolved to take appropriate action as per the findings of the report of the Justice Sri A.Hanumanthu Committee and also to initiate action duly following the UGC Guidelines. In pursuance of the Executive Council resolution, the University also has issued a show cause notices on 18.12.2010 to the writ petitioner and another, giving 15 days’ time seeking an explanation as to why their appointments, which are illegal and are in violation of sanctioned staffing pattern under UGC Scheme under the XI plan, which is not approved by the UGC, should not be cancelled. The University Grants Commission sanctioned a centre for study of social exclusion and inclusive policy during XI Plan scheme to the University and the centre, which is established in which the writ petitioner is working will receive grant-in-aid from the UGC under the scheme only up to the end of XI plan period ie., 31.3.2012. The State Government releases block grant to meet salaries only to the approved posts in the University. Hence, the University will be able to pay the salaries after receiving the grant-in-aid from the UGC along with the arrears due to them. There is no financial provision for meeting the salaries of the posts sanctioned under the UGC scheme, out of the State Government block grant. The 3rd respondent in the present writ petition ie., University Grants Commission, addressed a letter vide F.No.3-2/2008(SCT), dated 04.04.2011, to the first respondent stating that it regrets its inability to pay salaries of three Lecturers-cum-Assistant Directors namely 1) Dr.Prameela Margaret, 2) Dr.K.Nagendra Reddy and 3) Dr.P.Narayana appointed by the University against the post of Professor-cum-Director and Reader-cum-Deputy Director under the scheme of Establishment of centre in the Universities for study of Social exclusion and inclusive policy. Hence the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was selected by a duly selection committee against the post of Reader cum Deputy Director and that issuing the impugned proceedings by the University Grants Commission for excluding the salary of petitioner and others for release of grant is illegal and therefore he prays to set aside the same. 7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the appointment of the petitioner is illegal and therefore, the UGC has decided to exclude the salary for the petitioner and hence he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. In pursuance of a notification issued by the first respondent, certain posts have been notified. They are Director/Professor(1), Deputy Director/Reader(2) and the Assistant Director/Lecturer(3) besides other posts. In pursuance of the said notification, the petitioner has applied for the post of Lecturer cum Assistant Director and as a matter of fact, in pursuance of the selection process, he was appointed as Lecturer cum Assistant Director against the vacancy of Reader/Deputy Director, which is totally against the rules governing the service conditions. However, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the guidelines issued by the first respondent dated 10.04.2011 where under statute No.9 of Chapter X of the Laws of Sri Venkateswara University reads as follows: “The syndicate after considering the applications received for a teacher’s posts advertised for the recommendations of the Selection Committee, if any, there on, may keep the posts unfilled or fill it by appointing one on a grade lower than that for which applications were called”. Even the above statue would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has applied for the post of Lecturer cum Assistant Director and as a matter of fact the selection committee selected him for the post of Lecturer cum Assistant Director. When he was selected for that post, the question of considering his case for higher post is contrary to the rules and it is illegal. When petitioner is not selected and appointed for the post of Reader cum Deputy Director, question of paying salary for that post does not arise. There is no infringement of the right of the petitioner so as to issue a Mandamus. Therefore, the impugned proceedings need no interference. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. ________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Date:27.07.2011 Rns