THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5285 of 2005 Dated: 13.07.2010 Between: Dr. P.V.Nageswara Rao. .. Petitioner. And Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Rep. by its Registrar. .. Respondent. ORDER: It appears, the petitioner, who belongs to BC-B community, has been working as teaching Assistant in the department of Geology in the respondent University since 14.08.1995 and prior to that, he worked as teaching Assistant in the department of Environmental Sciences. While that being so, a vacancy of the post of Associate Professor in the department of Geology in the respondent University has arisen, for which notifications were issued on 06.05.1997, 22.05.1999 and 28.03.2002 earmarking the said post for SC-C category. According to the petitioner, in the selections conducted in pursuance of the notification dated 28.03.2002, one K.David was selected and he reported to duties as is evident from the Students Hand Book for the year 2002-03, and therefore, in the subsequent notification dated 16.09.2004, the subject post was not notified. But, however, as the said David subsequently left his job, in the impugned notification dated 24.01.2005, the subject post was notified along with other posts. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the subject post being filled up with one K.David in pursuance of notification dated 28.03.2002, there was no backlog vacancy in SC category for the subject post, in the year 2004, but surprisingly, in the impugned notification dated 24.01.2005, the subject post was notified as SC/ST backlog vacancy, which is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government and also arbitrary and illegal. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. The respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that though the said K.David was selected under S.C. category for the subject post, he did not join duties and, therefore, the subject post remains vacant and continues to be backlog post under SC/ST category. It is also stated that prior approval has been obtained from the Government to fill up the said post as backlog post. Learned counsel for the petitioner supported the case of the petitioner and submits that the subject post requires to be de- categorized and notified under B.C. category. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned notification stating that, as the person selected to the subject post did not join duties, the same has been notified by the impugned notification as SC/ST backlog vacancy. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the impugned notification and other material made available on record. Generally speaking, when a particular post is notified under SC/ST category for three consecutive recruitments and is filled up with a candidate belonging to SC/ST category in one of such recruitments, the said post, if later falls vacant, must not be earmarked as SC/ST backlog vacancy and requires to be de-categorized and notified as per roster. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject post was notified for three consecutive recruitments and is filled up with one K.David, a candidate belonging to SC/ST community, in one of such recruitments, but however he subsequently left the job after his reporting to duties. This contention is denied by the respondent stating that though K.David was selected, he never joined duties and, therefore, the subject post remains vacant under SC/ST category and continues to be backlog post. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to examine as to whether the subject post was notified under S.C. category for three consecutive recruitments and any person under that category was selected and joined duties, and, if so, whether the said post can be de-categorised and notified under B.C. category, so as to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to that post, and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 13.07.2010 v v