IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 13768 of 1993 Between: 1. R.Hanumantha Singh, S/o late Balaji Singh, 45 years, Grade-I Hindi Pandit, S.V.Oriental High School, Tirupati, R/o Tirupati. 2. C.Balasubramanyam, Grade-I Hindi Pandit, S.V.High School, Tirumala. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, rep., by the Executive Officer. 2. Sri K.Brahmachari, Lecturer (Hindi), S.V.Oriental College, Tirupati. .....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 first respondent herein in appointing the second respondent as Lecturer on adhoc basis, contrary to the Memo, dated 03.12.1991 issued by the first respondent, as illegal, and further direct the first respondent herein to appoint the petitioners as Lecturers in Hindi in their Educational Institutions in the existing vacancies and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.V.SUBRAMANYA NARASU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.A.RAMALINGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2: ….. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners, who are working as Grade-I Hindi Pandits in Sri Venkateswara Oriental High School, Tirupati, filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in appointing second respondent as Lecturer on adhoc basis contrary to the Memo, dated 03.12.1991, as illegal and consequently, to direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioners as Lecturers in Hindi in the existing vacancies in their Educational Institutions. 2. The Executive Officer of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, filed the counter-affidavit stating that the petitioners’ names were also included in the panel and their case will be considered at an appropriate time. 3. The writ petition was admittedly filed in the month of September, 1993 and the learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that he has no instructions as to whether the case of the petitioners’ was considered or not. 4. In the light of the specific averments made in the counter-affidavit that the names of the petitioners were also included in the panel and their case will be considered at an appropriate time, I do not think any orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. 5. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of. However, if the petitioners’ case is not considered so far, in view of the averment made in the counter-affidavit that their case will be considered at an appropriate time, the respondents are hereby directed to consider their case for absorption as Lecturers in their Educational institutions. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 05.08.2004 DR To 1. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, rep., by the Executive Officer. 2. Two CD copies.