HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10342 of 2010 Dated: 31-05-2010 Between: Dr. B.Madhusudhan Reddy. … Petitioner And Osmania University, rep. by its Registrar. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10342 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 03.03.2010, passed by the respondent- University, rejecting the request of the petitioner for reinstatement into service, and the subsequent notification, dated 24.04.2010, issued in advertisement No.1/2010, inviting applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the vacant posts in the Educational Multi Media Research Centre, established by the University Grants Commission in the respondent- University. The petitioner was appointed as a Section officer in the Educational Multi Media Research Centre of the respondent-University, on 04.07.1998, on a tenure service basis. The petitioner has tendered his resignation for the said post on 03.01.2007, and the same was accepted by the respondent-University by an order, dated 4th January 2007, issued in Proceedings bearing No.MR- 1/92/98/Adm.III. After the said resignation, the petitioner has contested to the post of the Member of Legislative Council. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation seeking for reinstatement into service, and on the ground that his representation was not considered, he approached this Court earlier by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.28769 of 2009, which was disposed of by an order, dated 25.01.2010, directing to pass appropriate orders by examining in depth, the representation of the petitioner. Consequent to the directions issued by this Court, detailed reasons were given for rejecting the request of the petitioner by impugned order, dated 03.03.2010. Subsequently, a detailed advertisement is issued to fill up the vacant posts, including the post of Section Officer, in the aforesaid Educational Multi Media Research Centre. Hence, the present writ petition is filed, questioning the order, dated 03.03.2010, and also the advertisement bearing No.1/2010, dated 24th of April 2010. Though the petitioner pleads that he was appointed in the Educational Multi Media Research Centre on permanent basis, there is no record before this Court to show the permanent nature of his appointment. In any event, it is also to be noted that undisputedly the petitioner has resigned to the post he was holding, by submitting the letter of resignation, dated 03.01.2007, and the same is also accepted by an order, dated 4th January 2007. When the resignation and its consequential acceptance by the competent authority is not in dispute, without withdrawing the said resignation and questioning its acceptance, the petitioner cannot seek for his reinstatement into service. Though the petitioner has alleged some discrimination against some other persons, but with regard to the other candidates, it is explained in the impugned order itself that they are in the permanent service of the University in contrast to the nature of appointment of the petitioner, which is a temporary one in the centre opened by the University Grants Commission in the respondent-University. In that view of the matter, as much as the resignation of the petitioner is on his own, which is not in dispute and which is accepted by the University, the petitioner cannot seek for reinstatement into service. Even with regard to the advertisement issued by the University to fill up the vacant posts, I do not find any illegality in the said notification. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner Sri P.Nageswar Rao that a Committee is appointed to look into the issue of reinstating the petitioner into service, but in the absence of any factual dispute with regard to filing and acceptance of petitioner’s resignation, I do not find any valid ground to direct for reinstatement of the petitioner into service. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order, dated 03.03.2010, and also in the advertisement issued by the respondent-University in Advertisement No.1/2010, dated 24.04.2010. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 31st May 2010 ajr