THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 7828 OF 1992 Date: 08.12.2006 Between: P. Jaganmohan Reddy. … Petitioner and A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society (Registered) rep., by its Secretary, Khandhara Complex, Abids, Hyderabad and four others. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 7828 OF 1992 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a declaration that the petitioner is senior to respondents 4 and 5 in the category of lecturers and to promote him to the post of Principal and on the said basis give him all consequential benefits. Sri M. Vijayabhaskar Moola, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, would submit that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, in accordance with the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 12519 of 1996, an anomaly committee was constituted to go into these disputed questions of seniority and other service conditions of employees of the 1st respondent and that the committee has been asked to submit its recommendations latest by the end of March 2007. Learned Standing Counsel would also submit that the petitioner himself was promoted as a Principal on 09.07.1999, and that respondents 4 and 5, over whom he claimed seniority are no longer in service. Learned Standing Counsel would also submit that the petitioner’s grievance with regards his seniority in the category of Principal was addressed and he was placed above one Sri G. Ramalingam, vide proceedings dated 30.09.2000, in the seniority list of principals. Learned Counsel would submit that in view of the subsequent events and as the petitioner has been promoted as Principal, the cause in the writ petition does not survive adjudication. Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, vehemently contends that in case of a declaration by this Court that the petitioner is senior to respondents 4 to 5, he would have been entitled to be promoted as a Principal much prior to the actual date of his promotion and as such his seniority vis-à- vis respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition would still require to be adjudicated. Without examining these rival contentions, the submissions of Sri M. Vijayabhaskar Moola, learned Standing Counsel, that an anomaly committee has been constituted to examine the disputes such as the one which arises in this writ petition and the committee has been asked to submit its recommendations before the end of March 2007, is recorded. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1st respondent herein to place the petitioner’s grievance before the anomaly committee and seek its recommendations in this regard. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ Date: 08.12.2006 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR