IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 446 of 1998 Between: Dr.V.Sreekrishna S/o C.Venugopal R/o W.223, Orchard Apartment, Flat No.12, Annanagar, Chennai 600 101. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultral University, Rep by its Registrar, Rajendranagar. Hyderabad. 2 The Board of Management ANGR Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. 3 The Selection Committee, The Board of Management ANGR Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. Rep by its Chairman. 4 Dr.Mrs. Chamundeswari, Asst Professor College of Veterinary Sciences, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 5 J.Ravi Asst Professor College of Veterinary Sciences, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30. .....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 of Mandamus declaring the action of hte posts of Assocatte Professor, Fishery Science (Acuqua Culture) in the 1st respondent University as wholly arbitrary illegal and void and consequently set aside their selections pursuant to the Advertisment No.1/RC.1997 dt: 6.1.97 and interview held on 28.10.97 and approved by the Board of Management on 29.12.97 and direct the Officals Respondents to appoint the petitioner as Associate Professor Fishery Science (Acuqua Culture) and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.P.CHANDRAMOULI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.SIVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO: 446 of 1998 ORDER: 1 Petitioner filed this Writ Petition with the following prayer: “For all the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in selecting respondents 4 and 5 for the posts of Associate Professors, Fishery Science (Aqua Culture) in the 1st respondent University as wholly arbitrary illegal and void and consequently set aside their selections pursuant to the Advertisement No.1/RC.1997 dt: 6.1.97 and interview held on 28.10.97 and approved by the Board of Management on 29.12.97 and direct the Official Respondents to appoint the petitioner as Associate Professor Fishery Science (Aqua Culture) and to pass such other order (s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 2 The brief facts are that the petitioner is a Ph.D in Botany with Cytology and genetics as specialization and he is also a Ph.D in Environmental Sciences with Aqua Culture and fishery Biology as specialization. According to him, the said Ph.Ds are very much relevant to the posts of Associate Professor, Fishery Science (Aqua Culture) and Associate Professor, Fishery Science (Fishery Biology). Though he is fully qualified to be considered for the post of Associate Professor in either of the faculties, ignoring his claim, the respondents 1 to 3 considered the case of the respondents 4 and 5 for the posts of Associate Professors in their respective faculties i.e. Fishery Science (Aqua Culture) and Fishery Science (Fishery Biology). The said action is questioned in this Writ Petition. 3 The respondents 1 to 3 file a detailed counter affidavit. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents put forth in the Writ Petition and submitted that it is purely because of the favouritism etc., the case of the respondents 4 and 5 was considered ignoring the claim of the petitioner. 5 From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, and the contentions put forth by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, this court is of the view that the respondents 4 and 5 are better qualified than the petitioner and it cannot be said that the said appointment of respondents 4 and 5 was on account of favouritism etc. 6 Coming to the case of the fourth respondent she is Ph.D in Zoology with thesis problem titled “Growth Evaluation Under Formulated Feeds in Cultivable Fish Labo Rohita.” The above Ph.D is the specialization in Aqua Culture and as such she was called for the interview for the post of Associate Professor in Aqua Culture. 7 So far as the fifth respondent is concerned, he has experience as Pool Officer i.e. Ph.D in Aqua culture and has published research work. He worked as Post Doctoral Reasearch Fellow from 01.09.1989 to 31.08.1990 i.e. for a period of one year one month and 25 days in International Centre for Aqua Culture at Aburan University, USA in Fish Nutrition, which qualifies as Scientific Pool Officer and as an Assistant Professor for a period of three years seven months and 27 days. Thus the total experience that the fourth respondent was having as on the date of notification was 5 years four months and as such he was called for the interview. 8 Thus, those two Assistant Professors i.e. respondents 4 and 5 are better qualified than the petitioner herein in those faculties and taking the same into consideration they were directed to appear for an interview and thereafter they were selected and the said selection, in my considered view, cannot be said to be arbitrary, malafide or on account of any favouritism. 9 Accordingly, I see no merits in this Writ Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------- 23.06.2009 kvsn