IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 1551 of 2000 Between: J.Somanna S/o.Manya R/o.Dharmapuram , Warangal Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Registrar , O.U Osmania University , Hyderabad. 2 K.Deepla R/o.Tuniki , Kowdipalli Mandal Medak Dist. .....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 May be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus calling for the rescords relating to order No; MR-590-71/99 Adm.II-1 , Dt: 29-11-1999 by declaring it as illegal , bad and arbitrary and further direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Professor in Physical Education with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring Order No.MR-590-71/99/Admn.II-1 dated 29.11.1999 in appointing the second respondent as Assistant Professor in Physical Education as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor in Physical Education. It appears, in pursuance of the notification dated 14.5.1999, petitioner as well as second respondent applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education. After interview and selection, second respondent was appointed through the impugned proceedings. The grievance of the petitioner is that firstly second respondent is not eligible even for applying to the post of Assistant Professor, since the notification insists upon that one must have at least 55% marks in the Post Graduation, and second respondent has secured only 54.5%, therefore, the very application could not have been considered. Secondly, petitioner is meritorious and secured 64.25% marks in Post Graduation, therefore, he could have been preferred. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner stating that through the University Circular No.653/M-996/81/Acad. dated 20.2.1982, it was decided to treat 0.5% and above marks secured in aggregate at the Post Graduation level as 1% for the purpose of calculating the percentage for recruitment to teaching posts in the University and affiliated colleges (e.g. 54.5% and above will be treated as 55%). In another circular of the University No.1178/H/996/92/Acad. dated 25.3.1992, the Standing Committee of Academic Senate at its meeting held on 7.1.1992 has resolved that 54.5% and above marks secured by the candidates at the Post Graduation examinations from other Universities be treated as 55% for the purpose of recruitment. While this is regarding eligibility, the performance of the candidate in the selection committee and the decision of the selection committee thereon are the deciding factors for appointing an individual to the post. It is further stated that second respondent was fully qualified and eligible for being considered for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education, therefore, his name was considered though he obtained 54.5% of marks, which was treated as 55% marks. This decision was taken much prior to the issuance of notification. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the second respondent was not entitled even for applying the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education. The learned counsel for petitioner Sri J.R.Manohar Rao, strenuously contended that the resolution passed by the Senate or the Circulars issued by the University have no bearing in considering the basic qualification of securing 55% marks in Post Graduation examination since the UGC (University Grants Commission) notification dated 19.10.1995 stresses as to the necessity of securing 55% marks for considering for being appointed to the post of Assistant Professor. This Court called for records relating to selections since it was asserted by the petitioner that except percentage of marks, no other criteria was taken nor any tests were conducted for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education. This seems to be not correct. The learned counsel appearing for University placed before the Court the record relating to recommendations of selection committee, which disclose that four candidates had appeared for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education and ultimately the second respondent was selected. The aggregate marks obtained by petitioner and second respondent would make it clear that the second respondent was meritorious and as such he was selected and appointed. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 27.2.2008 DA