IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No: 3972 of 2010 Between: Smt. A.D.S.Prabhavathi ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No: 3972 of 2010 ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not re- engaging the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in Civics on contract basis in the 4th respondent college by adopting the inter se merit between the petitioner and the fresh applicants, instead of considering her case under G.O.Rt.No.491 dated 05.07.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to consider her case in the light of G.O.Rt.No.491 dated 05.07.2007. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a contract Lecturer in Civics in the year 2002 in the 4th respondent-college and she was terminated from the services on 05.01.2007 even before expiry of the contract period for the year 2006-07 keeping in view the representation made by her against the Principal of that college about the irregularities committed by him. Aggrieved by the same, she filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent seeking to set aside her termination from the services. The said appeal was disposed of on 15.12.2007 advising the petitioner to apply as a fresh candidate whenever a notification in that regard is published in future. Aggrieved thereby, she filed a Revision Petition dated 15.02.2008 before the 2nd respondent seeking to set-aside the proceedings dated 15.12.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent and to consider her candidature for the year 2007-08. As no action has been taken, she filed O.A.No.6732 of 2009 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. After receipt of the interim orders of the Tribunal, the respondents by letter dated 24.07.2009 informed the petitioner that her application dated 05.06.2009 will be considered as and when the notification is issued for appointment as contract faculty for the year 2009-10, as per the directions of the Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, she filed O.A.No.9438 of 2009 along with M.A.No.4219 of 2009 before the Tribunal seeking directions to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition dated 15.02.2008 in Service-II B3 by keeping one post of Lecturer in Civics on contract basis reserved to her and consider her case for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Civics in the existing vacancies under the control of the 3rd respondent. In the said O.A., the respondents have filed the counter affidavit stating that the petitioner could not get the contract faculty as she secured less percentage of marks than the other persons who appeared for selection as contract faculty; notification to the contract faculty for the year 2009-10 was issued during the month of July, 2009; there were two vacancies and they were allotted to the candidates who secured 89.37% and 86.75% of marks; as per the order of the Tribunal the candidature of the petitioner was also considered in the counseling, but as she secured only 53.5% marks, she was not selected; she could not get the contract faculty either in the order of merit or from the Roster system; her case will be considered for all selection lists in future. Considering the averments in the counter affidavit, the Tribunal, by order dated 04.12.2009 in O.A.No.9438 of 2009 with M.A.No.4219 of 2009, on the ground that directing the revisional authority to pass orders on the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose, rejected the relief sought for by her. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to G.O.Rt.No.491 Higher Education (I.E-I/A1) Department dated 05.07.2007 wherein the Government has communicated decisions on item-wise demands pursuant to a representation made by the Junior College Contract Lecturers Association. In item no.2 thereof, to the demand that the contract lecturers who have been terminated due to the transfers/ promotions/ redeployment should be utilized against the suitable vacancy, the Government concurred that such former contract Lecturers can also apply for appointment against fresh vacancies being filled up on contract basis; and, in item no.8 thereof, to the demand that the 10% less than the college pass percentage instead of district subject average should be made as criteria for renewals of contract lecturers, the Government concurred that while considering re-engagement for the academic year 2007-08, a relaxation up to 20% below District average shall be permitted for Contract Junior Lecturers. It is vehemently contended that the respondents instead of considering the case of the petitioner under G.O.Rt.No.491 dated 05.07.2007 erroneously adopting the inter se merit between the petitioner and the fresh applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services contends that the Tribunal has rightly held that when once the petitioner was terminated from the services, she has to apply afresh as and when a notification in that regard is issued and though her candidature was considered by the respondents in the selections for appointment as contract lecturer for the year 2009- 10, she could not be selected on the basis of merit as the fresh candidates secured more marks than her and, even as per item 2 of the G.O.Rt.No.491, the petitioner can, as a former lecturer, apply for appointment against fresh vacancies being filled up on contract basis and her case will be considered according to merit between her and the fresh applicants. 5. A perusal of G.O.Rt.No.491 makes it clear that the concurrence of the Government in item no.2 does not by itself confer any right upon the petitioner so as to consider her case individually for appointment to the vacancy being filled up on contract basis as no weightage was given for the past service. Therefore, she has to apply for appointment against fresh vacancies being filled up on contract basis and compete with the fresh applicants. Though the case of the petitioner was considered for the selections in the year 2009-10 she got less marks than the fresh applicants. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 04.12.2009 passed in O.A.No.9438 of 2009 by the Tribunal. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the revision petition pending before the second respondent be determined on merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made either by the Tribunal or by this Court in these proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 9th March 2010 cvrk