IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 661 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 03/04/2008 in WP NO : 24089 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: D.A.Rama Rao, S/o Aravalu, Andhra University Campus, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Andhra University, represented by its Vice-Chancellor, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Registrar, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant :PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondents : MR.M.V.RAJA RAM The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 661 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy) This writ appeal is filed against the orders of the learned single Judge, dated 3rd April 2008, passed in writ petition No.24089 of 2006. 2. The original petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant. Writ petition was filed questioning the proceedings dated 18.10.2005 and 14.02.2006 issued by the respondent/University rejecting the claim of the petitioner for employment in the scheme framed by the University. 3. The petitioner was originally employed in the year 1986 as a Junior Assistant in the Institute for Coastal and Offshore Research (INCOR), which was established by the respondent/Andhra University. The said institute was closed in the year 1989, and the petitioner, along with 59 others, approached this Court and filed writ petition No.2024 of 1989. The said writ petition was disposed of with directions to the University to frame a scheme and consider for appointing the petitioner in suitable post. Though a Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal No.846 of 1991 has modified certain directions, but however, the said order was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3971 of 1993. Pursuant to the directions of the learned single Judge, which were upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the University as early as in 1995. When the appellant herein made a further representation in the year 2005, further directions were issued in proceedings dated 18.10.2005 and 14.02.2006, reiterating the same. But however, the case of the appellant herein was considered by the learned single Judge in writ petition No.24089 of 2006 and he was appointed as a Record Assistant. 4. In this case, it is the case of the appellant that as per directions of the learned single Judge, the respondent/University ought to have considered giving of back wages and continuity of service based on his initial appointment as Junior Assistant. However, the said contention of the appellant, who is appearing as party-in-person, cannot be accepted for the reason that the scheme was framed by the University pursuant to the directions issued by the learned single Judge. Further, it is also to be noticed that the claim of the petitioner was rejected as early as on 05.01.1995 and after 11 long years, he has approached this Court by filing writ petition No.24089 of 2006. However, the University itself, on the interim orders of this Court, considered the case of the petitioner sympathetically and appointed him as a Record Assistant. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for any further relief of continuity of service or any other monetary emoluments basing on his initial appointment as a Junior Assistant. 5. Writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 7th July 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr To 1 The Vice-Chancellor, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Registrar, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam.