HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.14360 of 1992 MONDAY, THE 9th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 Between: D.Shyamsunder ….PETITIONER(S) and The Director of 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.14360 of 1992 ORDER: (PER SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus declaring that he is entitled for absorption as a Lecturer in English in the 2nd respondent college as per G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23.08.1991 and G.O.Ms.Nos.12 & 13 dated 10.01.1992. Heard the learned counsel on either side. Admittedly, the petitioner joined in the 2nd respondent college on 23.09.1982 as a part-time Lecturer in English in a leave vacancy and continued as such till 10.06.1985. It is his claim that he is entitled for regularization of service as per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23.08.1991 as per the procedure contemplated for absorption in G.O.Ms.Nos.12 and 13 dated 10.01.1992. However, it is to be taken note of that G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 23.08.1991 was already superceded by the orders of Government in G.O.Ms.No.328 Education (CE-III) Department dated 15.10.1997. Unless a part-time Lecturer satisfies the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997, he is not entitled to be considered for regularization of service. Further, by now, the petitioner has also attained the age of superannuation and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. Further, the issue of cut off date as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.328 Education (CE-III) Department dated 15.10.1997 was dealt with and negatived by a Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27295 of 1998 and batch dated 09.11.2009 following the judgment of the Apex Court in A.MANJULA BHASHINI AND OTHERS VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P. WOMEN’S COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER[1]. In view thereof, the petitioner 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, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 9th November 2009 CVRK [1] 2009(5) ALD 58 (SC)