HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.35079 of 1998 TUESDAY, THE 24th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 Between: K.Purnima ….PETITIONER(S) and The Commissioner for Collegiate Education, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and others …RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.35079 of 1998 ORDER: (PER SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY) Petitioner who was working as a part-time lecturer in 3rd respondent aided college filed this petition questioning the validity of proceedings L.Dis.No.272/PC.II-1/98 dated 15.10.1998 issued by 1st respondent i.e., the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. By the aforesaid order, the 1st respondent confirmed the proceedings dated 13.04.1998 issued by the Director of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for regularization of her Service was rejected. The Government has issued guidelines for regularization of the Services of part-time lecturers working in Private Aided Degree/Private Aided Junior colleges through G.O.Ms.No.328 Education (CE-III) Department dated 15.10.1997. As per the conditions notified in the said G.O., to have the benefit of regularization, a part-time Lecturer should have put in a Service of 3 academic years as on 30.07.1991 or 5 academic years as on 25.11.1993, as the case may be, and also continuing in service on the date of issuance of those orders. When the 3rd respondent college sent proposals for regularization of the Service of the petitioner along with some others, as per G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997, the Director of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad, by his proceedings in Rc.No.272/PC.II-1/98 dated 13.04.1998 rejected such claim for regularization, on the ground that the petitioner and three others have not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.328. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation stating that earlier she worked in the 3rd respondent college from 14.10.1987 to 05.04.1989 and that the said period is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning of service for compliance of the conditions notified in the said G.O. But, as the records were not produced in that regard, the 2nd respondent was directed to conduct inquiry by verifying the records of the 3rd respondent college. The 2nd respondent, after verifying the records of the 3rd respondent college, reported that there were no records in proof of the claim of the petitioner showing that she worked in the 3rd respondent college from 14.10.1987 to 05.04.1989. In the light of the inquiry report submitted by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings in L.Dis.No.272/PC.II-1/98 dated 15.10.1998. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner worked earlier in the 3rd respondent college from 14.10.1987 to 05.04.1989 and if the said period is taken into consideration, the petitioner fulfils the criteria notified in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997. In support of the said claim, the learned counsel has referred to a certificate said to have been issued by the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. A perusal of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 it is clear that counting of Service shall be based on the certificate issued by the Regional Joint Director (Higher Education) based on the certificates issued by the Correspondent of the respective college and countersigned by the Principal of the Private College along with the certificate of audit for the concerned period. The certificate of Service produced by the petitioner is not in accordance with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.328 referred to above. Though the petitioner further claims that during the academic years 1989-91 she worked in Vidya Bharathi Junior & Degree College, the said period cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning of Service for fulfilling the conditions notified in G.O.Ms.No.328, as even according to her, she worked in an un-aided post in that college. As such, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent by taking into consideration the report of the 2nd respondent and, therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings dated 15.10.1998. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has not fulfilled the criteria notified in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 and, therefore, she is not entitled for the relief sought and the writ petition is devoid of merits and hence is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. It is needless to mention that the direction issued by a Full Bench of this Court, while dismissing W.P.No.23485 of 2007 and batch, by order dated 24.11.2009, will operate in this case also. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 24th November 2009 CVRK