HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.9920 of 1998 MONDAY, THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 Between: B.V.Prasad and another ….PETITIONER(S) and Government of A.P. rep. by Secretary, Educn. (CE-III) Department, Secretariat, 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.9920 of 1998 ORDER: (PER SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY) In this petition, the petitioners, who were working as part-time lecturers, sought to declare, by way of mandamus, the action of the Director of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad i.e. the 2nd respondent herein in his letter dated 26.03.1998 whereunder the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services in the 3rd respondent college was rejected on the ground that they have passed the Post Graduation Degree with less than 55% marks, as arbitrary and illegal, if necessary by declaring the clause 4 (sic for 9.4) of G.O.Ms.No.328 Education (CE-III) Department dated 15.10.1997 as arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently sought to direct the respondents to regularize them in service in the 3rd respondent college and allow all consequential benefits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. Admittedly, the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.328 Education (CE-III) Department dated 15.10.1997 notifying the criteria for regularization of service. Clause 9.4 of the G.O.Ms.No.328 makes it clear that only such of the part-time Lecturers and part-time Junior Lecturers who have passed the Post Graduate Degree with not less than 55% marks in the relevant subject in case of Lecturers, and not less than 50% marks in the relevant subject in case of Junior Lecturers working in private aided Degree/Junior Colleges respectively will be considered for regularization of services. The first petitioner is stated to have passed M.Sc.( Applied Mathematics) in the year 1984 with 54.82% marks and the second petitioner is stated to have passed M.A. in English language and literature in the year 1988 with 53.2% marks. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the difference of marks is very marginal, but when a criteria is notified by the Government in the scheme formulated by it and when the petitioners have not fulfilled that criteria with regard to the educational qualifications, we do not find any merit in the writ petition for grant of regularization as sought. In that view of the matter and as no other question arises for consideration, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is devoid of merits. 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 12th OCTOBER 2009 CVRK/KPR