HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3004 of 2010 ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing proceedings No.728/Admn.V-1/2009 dated 11/01/2010 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, to direct the second respondent to approve the proposals forthwith and release the benefits due and payable to the petitioner on being promoted as Principal of the fourth respondent college on regular basis. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been working as Reader in Political Science and has been appointed as a Principal of the fourth respondent college. While that being so, a regular Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘DPC’) met on 29/07/2009 and recommended appointment of the petitioner and also recommended for approval from CCE, AP, Hyderabad. The proposals for approval of the promotion of the petitioner were sent to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Government of A.P., Hyderabad on 30/07/2009. Further, on 09/09/2009 a reminder was addressed to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education as to the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as a Principal of the fourth respondent college. While this being so, it appears some staff members made some vague allegations as to his rude behaviour, and the Commissioner of Collegiate Education through the impugned order dated 11/01/2010 returned the proposals to the correspondent of the fourth respondent college and directed to convene DPC once again bringing complaints made by retired Judge on 30/07/2009 on the method of selection for the post of Principal by bringing the same to the notice of DPC. It is unfortunate that such a vague allegation was made in the impugned order dated 11/01/2010. The petitioner under Right to Information Act obtained a letter from the Registry of High Court of A.P. to show that there was no such officer by name Ch.Ramanjaneyulu retired Judge as per the records of High Court of A.P. Thus, it seems that some vague complaint was received by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to create hurdle in the way of the petitioner that was somehow entertained and the proposals were sent back for reconsideration. In pursuance of the said order, a DPC was conducted on 26/02/2010 and it differed the matter on the ground that some enquiry was pending on the complaint purported to have been filed in the name of an organisation called Tharuni. When the petitioner approached the said organisation, the Director of the organisation gave a letter saying that they do not have any person by name Ch.Bhavani associated with the organisation, and therefore, he has intimated the same to the Principal of the College. All these proceedings would show that some efforts are being made by unknown persons to create hurdle in the way of the petitioner becoming Principal of the College. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent placed the records before this Court. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that there is no serious complaint pending against the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the impugned order is suspended and the DPC conducted on 26/02/2010 shall be treated as a non-est in the eye of law. The second respondent is directed to consider the proposals sent by the college initially dated 30/07/2009 and pass appropriate orders as per law, within a period of three (3) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, since the petitioner is going to retire on 31/08/2010, without reference to the impugned order and the complaints purported to have been received by them and the college management in the meanwhile. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 24th August, 2010 NOTE: Order copy to be despatched by tomorrow. B/o. SKM