IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.13232 of 1999 Between: V.Bharathi D/o.Subrahmanyam R/o.11-150/4 S.V.Nagar, Tirupathi Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswa Vidyalayam, Rep. by its Executive Council, Tirupathi. 3 The Registrar, Padmavathi Mahila Viswa Vidyalayam, Tirupathi. 4 Smt. D.Prabhavathi, W/o.K.Subbaraylu, R/o. T.T.D. Plot No.8 D.NO.2-182, M.R.Palli, Tirpathi, Chittoor District. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in appointing the 4th respondent as Assistant Librarian vide Proc.No.911/Estt/NT/C/99 dt:25-5-1999 even without required qualifications against scheduled caste vacancy, as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same, and consequently direct the respondents to fill the vacancy with the eligible S.C. Candidate by considering the candidature of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in appointing the 4th respondent as Assistant Librarian vide Proceedings No.911/Estt/NT/C/99, dated 25-5-1999 even without the required qualifications against Scheduled Caste vacancy as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to fill up the vacancy with eligible S.C. candidate by considering the candidature of the petitioner. While admitting the Writ Petition, no interim order was made. Thus, the 4th respondent is continued. The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is not eligible for being appointed against a backlog vacancy meant for S.C. Petitioner alone is entitled for being considered against S.C. backlog vacancy; therefore, the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent is arbitrary and illegal. A detailed counter is filed by respondents 2 and 3 denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the State Government vide its letter dated 13-4-1999 directed the University to fill the backlog vacancy on or before 30-6-1999. Therefore, the University has relaxed the NET qualification and conducted interviews to all the eligible candidates, who had applied in response to the notification issued in the year 1996 after withdrawing the case by the 4th respondent and after obtaining the legal opinion from the Standing Counsel of S.P.Mahila Viswa Vidyalayam, duly informing the position to this Court. Respondent No.4 was appointed as Assistant Librarian only on the recommendations of the duly constituted selection committee, after approval of the Executive Council. Therefore, the allegation levelled by the petitioner that the 4th respondent is not eligible for the post of Assistant Librarian is not correct. Moreover, the petitioner has clearly stated that she is eligible for the post of Lecturer as she was qualified in the State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) in January,1999. This also clearly indicates that she is eligible only to the post of Lecturer in the concerned subject, but not to the post of Assistant Librarian. It is not correct to say that the petitioner is an eligible candidate for the post of Assistant Librarian, if the same was a backlog vacancy. It is a fact that it is a SC backlog vacancy and the University has clearly notified it as a backlog vacancy in the year 1996. The candidate also belongs to SC category as per the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Petitioner was not at all qualified to the post of Assistant Librarian, as she got her M.L.Sc. Degree in the year 1998. Further, the issue with regard to appointment of Assistant Librarian by relaxing the NET has been examined thoroughly by the Executive Council and the recommendations of the selection committee in appointing the 4th respondent as Assistant Librarian has been approved in its meeting held on 25-5-1999. In view of the said averments in the counter, I am of the opinion that firstly, the petitioner obtained M.L.Sc Degree in 1998 and she was not entitled for being considered for a vacancy notified in the year 1996 with such qualifications and secondly, even according to her, she was eligible for being appointed as a Lecturer, since she was qualified in the State Level Eligibility Test (SLET). Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 28-3-2008 prk