HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO. 11483 of 1999 Date: 17-02-2011 Between: Dr. U. Shameem …… petitioner and Government of A.P. and others …… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO. 11483 of 1999 ORDER: Apprehending that the second respondent-university would confer the benefit of selection grade, by way of Career Advancement Scheme as a Reader, to respondents 3 to 5, overlooking the petitioner’s claim to be extended the said benefit before respondents 3 to 5 were given the said benefit, the present writ petition is filed by the then Assistant Professor in Zoology. The facts, to the extent necessary for disposal of the writ petition, are that respondent No.3 was appointed as a Senior Technical Assistant and respondents 4 and 5 were appointed as Junior Technical Assistants in the year 1986. The second respondent-university issued a notification in the year 1989 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lecturers in Zoology. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 participated in the selection process. While the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Lecturer in Zoology w.e.f. 09-05-1990, respondents 3 to 5 were unsuccessful and continued in their original post as Senior/Junior Technical Assistants. On 01-03-1997 the Government permitted the second respondent-university to re-designate respondents 3 to 5 as Lecturers in the teaching line. Subsequently, on 28-04-1999, the second respondent-university appointed a screening committee to examine the claims of Lecturers for being extended the benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme as a Reader. Apprehending that the services of respondents 3 to 5 would be reckoned from 1986, while her services would be reckoned only from 09-05-1990 when she was appointed as a Lecturer in Zoology, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The subsequent events show that the petitioner’s apprehension in this regard is misconceived. She was appointed as an Associate Professor and, thereafter, as Professor much before respondents 3 to 5 were appointed to the said posts. Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 to 5, would fairly state, on instructions, that respondents 3 to 5 do not dispute that the petitioner is senior to them as a Lecturer, Associate Professor and Professor in Zoology. Sri M.V. Rajaram, learned Standing counsel for the University would submit that respondents 3 to 5 have no justifiable claim of seniority over the petitioner herein. The action of the second respondent-university in promoting the petitioner as Associate Professor and Professor in Zoology, before respondents 3 to 5 were promoted to the said posts, also goes to show that the university has, all through, treated the petitioner as senior to respondents 3 to 5. In the light of the subsequent events it is evident that the petitioner’s apprehension of respondents 3 to 5 being given preference to her claim to higher posts is misconceived. The cause in the writ petition, in the light of the aforestated subsequent events, does not necessitate adjudication. The writ petition has become infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 17-02-2011 YCR