THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18013 OF 2002 and CONTEMPT CASE No.1344 OF 2002 COMMON ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent- Correspondent, MANSAS Educational Institutions Fort, Vizianagaram, in not continuing the petitioner in service as arbitrary, illegal and in contravention of Section 83 of the A.P. Education Act, 1987, and consequential directions to the official respondents to regularize his services as Lecturer in Commerce with all consequential benefits. The petitioner claims to be a postgraduate in Commerce, possessing M.Phil qualification. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that, on the basis of the educational qualifications of the petitioner, the 1st respondent- Correspondent, MANSAS Educational Institutions Fort, Vizianagaram, appointed him as a Lecturer in Commerce on 03.09.1999. It is further stated that the services of the petitioner have been utilized till the date of filing of writ petition, except some artificial breaks during summer vacation, to avoid payment of salary, and it was the practice of the 1st respondent to adopt candidates in the beginning of the academic year and discontinue them in summer vacation. Further, about nine candidates are appointed as Lecturers on part-time basis at the beginning of the academic year, but they have been discharging the duties on full-time basis, and that for the academic year 2002-03, only five part-time Lecturers were engaged. While there are about 15 aided posts in the department of Commerce, only 13 Lecturers have been working in aided posts and on retirement of a Lecturer by name Sri P. Krishna, in June 2002, another vacancy has also arisen, and thus altogether there are three vacant aided posts in the College. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is not allowing him to discharge his duties, though there is no change in the curriculum and strength of students and no orders of termination have been served on him, while the 5th respondent, who is junior to him and appointed in the month of December 1999 as Programmer, is allowed and her services are being utilized as a Lecturer, and the action of the respondents in not allowing him to discharge the duties is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 83 of the A.P. Education Act, 1987. He seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize his services as Lecturer in Commerce with all consequential benefits. While admitting the writ petition on 19.09.2002, this Court passed interim order in W.P.M.P.No.22621 of 2002, directing respondents 1 and 2 to continue the petitioner in service as Lecturer in Commerce, with regular salary and allowances as per the instructions of the Government, if there is workload. Complaining willful disobedience on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in complying with the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner filed C.C.No.1344 of 2002. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent in the contempt case, stating that, as per the existing workload, twelve permanent and four part-time Lecturers can only be accommodated in the Department of Commerce and there is no surplus work which can be allotted to the petitioner, who is the fifth member as per seniority, and thus he cannot be accommodated. The allegation that the services of the 5th respondent, who has been appointed as Programmer, are being utilized as a Lecturer, is denied, stating that she is serving only as a Computer Programmer. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, referred above, it is clear that the petitioner was not engaged during the academic year 2002-03, since there was no workload, and thus the action of the respondent authorities in not continuing him in service does not amount to retrenchment of his services. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition and the contempt case are dismissed. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 29th January, 2010. IBL