IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28446 of 2008 Between: 1 M.Jithender Reddy, S/o. M.Damodar Reddy, Department of History, Nizam college Osmania University, R/o. Flat No.303, S.V.Homes, Near Water Tank, Snehapuri Colony, Nacharam-5000 76 2 Mr. A. Parasuramulu, S/o. A.Narsaiah, Osmania University College of Technology, Osmania University, R/o. T.R.T. 105, Shivam road, Vidyanagar, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad-7 3 Smt. Ayodya Kavitha D/o. A.Venkataramana Reddy, University College of Technology, Osmania University,R/o. H.No.14- 176m Ganesh Nagar Colony,Near T.K.R. Engg. College, (PO) vishalinagar, Meerpet, Hyderabad-500079 ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Osmania University, Rep by its Registrar, Hyderabad. 2 Principal, Nizam College, Hyderabad 3 Head Department of Technology, University college of Technology, Osmania University, Hyderabad. 4 Principal University College of Technology, Osmania University, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents:MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners as Lecturers/Academic Consultants in the Departments of History, Nizam College; Mechanical Engineering and Textile Technology, University College of Technology, Osmania University respectively, as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. Heard Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. Petitioners 1 and 2 claim to be working in the Departments of History and Mechanical Engineering as Lecturers/Academic Consultants from 1995 and 1999 respectively and petitioner No.3 claims to be working as Lecturer in the Department of Textile Technology, University College of Technology, Osmania University, since 13.08.2001. They further claim that they acquired all the qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and All India Council for Technical Education for being appointed as Assistant Professors. Their grievance is that despite their repeated representations, their services were not regularized. They averred that respondent No.1 University regularized the services of Dr. Smt. C.Jayalakshmi (wrongly mentioned as Smt. C.Vijaya Lakshmi) and four others and that not extending the same benefit to the petitioners constitutes invidious discrimination and violation under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it is inter alia mentioned that the petitioners are working as Academic Consultants in their respective departments having been appointed by the Principals of the respective colleges at the beginning of every academic year depending upon the work load; that the said appointments were made by an internal college selection committee and that their term is confined between the beginning and the end of the academic year. It is further mentioned that the appointments of the petitioners were purely temporary and terminable without any notice and that they have not faced duly constituted selection committee in terms of Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1955 and UGC guidelines. It is also mentioned that the petitioners never applied against any notified vacancies. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, it is averred that the cases of Dr. C.Jayalakshmi and others were different and that they were appointed by a duly constituted selection committee and regularization of their services was done as per the directions of this Court and with the Government’s concurrence. As no specific averment with regard to the four persons named in the affidavit, was made in the counter-affidavit, this Court adjourned the case to enable the respondents to file an additional counter-affidavit. Accordingly, additional counter-affidavit is filed by the Registrar of respondent No.1 University. It is inter alia averred therein that five persons, who are named in the affidavit filed by the petitioners, namely, Dr. C.Jayalakshmi, Dr. S.Narender Reddy, Dr. N.Chenna Krishna Reddy, Dr. N.Kishan and Dr. Smt. G.Kamala, were appointed against the notified vacancies on the basis of recommendations of the duly constituted selection committee in their respective departments, but on ad hoc basis; that when the University decided to abolish the ad hoc appointments from the academic year 1992-93, the said persons filed Writ Petition Nos.10533, 10043 and 10534 of 1993, in which, interim directions were issued by this Court to continue the said persons in service; that a common order was rendered by this Court on 22.09.1998 in their favour, which was questioned in Writ Appeal Nos.2116, 2306 and 2307 of 2003 and that the Division Bench declined to grant interim order in the said Writ Appeals by observing that pendency of Writ Appeals will not deter the University from implementing the order of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the University has taken up the issue with the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which in turn, accorded permission to it to implement the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the services of the said five persons were regularized. From the facts referred to above, it is quite evident that the cases of the petitioners stand on a totally different footing from that of those five persons. The said five persons applied in pursuance of a notification issued by the University, went through the regular selection process and were selected. As they were appointed only on ad hoc basis, despite the said selection process, their removal was held to be illegal by this Court. On the said set of facts, the respondents have regularized the services of the said five persons. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the plea of the petitioners that non-regularisation of their services is discriminatory. The law is well settled that a person who was not selected by the duly constituted selection committee and has been working temporarily has no right to insist on regularization. (See State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi[1] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others[2]) In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above, the petitioners have no enforceable right to insist on regularisation. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.37269 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st APRIL, 2009. kvni [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] (2008) 10 SCC 1