IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13592 of 2006 Between: Prof. C. Kasipathi S/o. Veerabhadra Rao, Hindu Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice-Chancellore, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Registrar, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. 3 Prof. C.V. Raman, Department of Geology, College of Science & Technology, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of Respondents 1 & 2 herein in not finalising the seniority of the petitioner and 3rd Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, and dereliction of duty and make appointment to the post of Chairman Board of Studies in Geology (PG) in accordance with Law and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.BHASKARA CHARY Counsel for the Respondents: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Geology of Andhra University, in the year 1984. Two years thereafter, he was promoted as Reader and again on 27.07.1998, as Professor. The career of the third respondent appears to be almost parallel to that of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is senior to the third respondent and he complains that ignoring his seniority, respondents 1 and 2 are conferring positions, such as Chairman, Board of Studies and Head of the Department etc., on the third respondent. The petitioner claims to have made representations, dated 19.09.2005 and 17.11.2005, with a prayer to fix his seniority and complains that no action has been taken thereon. Heard Sri A.Bhaskara Chari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.V.Raja Ram, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Smt.N.Anjana Devi, learned counsel for the third respondent. The petitioner had an impression that he is senior to the third respondent, on the basis of a communication, dated 06.04.2001, issued by the Department of Geology. He asserts that, in all respects, he is senior to the third respondent. The latter, on the other hand, pleaded that himself and the petitioner were appointed as Lecturers at the same time and the Selection Committee had placed him and the petitioner at serial Nos.1 and 2, respectively. The same position is said to have been repeated for the post of Professor also. The petitioner states that he had been promoted as Professor on 27.07.1998, whereas the third respondent states that he was promoted earlier to the petitioner. However, the exact date is not before this Court. Limited controversy, in this regard, can be resolved by the University by necessary communication to the petitioner as regards his seniority vis-à-vis the third respondent. It is needless to mention that the views of the third respondent must also be ascertained, before any such communication is issued. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing, respondents 1 and 2 to issue necessary communication on the representations, dated 19.09.2005 and 17.11.2005, submitted by the petitioner, as regards his seniority, vis-à-vis the third respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after ascertaining the views and particulars of the third respondent. The intimation, which respondents 1 and 2 may give, as indicated above, would have its impact in the matter of conferring positions in the Department. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:02.07.2008 GJ