HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.1917 of 1994 MONDAY, THE 9th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 Between: N.Srinivasulu Reddy ….PETITIONER(S) and The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Nampally, 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.1917 of 1994 ORDER: (PER SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize his services in the 2nd respondent college. Heard the learned counsel on either side. The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the 2nd respondent college on 14.02.1985 as a part-time Lecturer and continued as such till 25.08.1987 and thereafter worked in different colleges as part-time lecturer. It is his claim that he again joined as part-time lecturer in the 2nd respondent college on 01.02.1990 and has been continuing as such. He seeks regularization of his service in the 2nd respondent college. One of the conditions stipulated in para 9.5 of G.O.Ms.No.328 Education (CE-III) Department dated 15.10.1997 is that for being eligible for regularization of service, a part-time Lecturer must have put in a service of 3 academic years as on 30.07.1991 or 5 academic years as on 25.11.1993 as the case may be and also continuing in service (emphasis supplied) on the date of issuance of those orders. Therefore, it is clear that if the petitioner establishes that the post of part-time lecturer in which he is said to have been working in the 2nd respondent college is an aided post and if he satisfies the minimum required service as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997, he is entitled to be considered for regularization of his service. Admittedly, the petitioner did not satisfy the condition of minimum required service as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 and, therefore, he is not entitled to be considered for regularization of service as sought. In view thereof, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought and the writ petition is devoid of merits and hence is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 9th November 2009 CVRK