HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD HONOUBLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.7110 OF 2000 DATE:02.12.2010 BETWEEN: V.Vijaya Babu …PETITIONER AND: GOVT OF A.P. REP BY ITS SECRETARY & OTHERS. …RESPONDENTS. HONOUBLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.7110 OF 2000 ORDER : The petitioner seeks for a writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent-Andhra University primarily to determine the seniority between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and to show the petitioner as senior to the 4th respondent. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Mechanical Engineering Department in the Andhra University, Visakhapatnam on 23.05.1990. The 4th respondent worked in a private unaided Engineering College at Kadapa from 11.07.1986 till 1994. He was a student of M.E. in Andhra University from 1990 till 1992. He was indeed a student of the petitioner from 12.11.1990 till 18.12.1991. In 1994, the 4th respondent was appointed as Lecturer in the same College in which the petitioner was appointed earlier. The grouse of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has recognised the 4th respondent as senior to the petitioner considering that the 4th respondent has been in service as a Lecturer with effect from 11.07.1986, whereas the petitioner has been in service with effect from 23.05.1990 only. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to G.O.Ms.No.132 Education (E.C.I.) Department dated 10.06.1993. Para 6 of the said G.O. envisages that the experience of persons working in private aided colleges apart from University and Government Colleges should be counted to determine the qualifying service for placing individuals in senior (pay) scale and selection grade. Para 6 of the G.O. however, is very clear that it does not determine the seniority of the individual on the above basis. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 4th respondent was in a private unaided College, that therefore his seniority could not be counted from 11.07.1986 and that the seniority of the 4th respondent deserves to be counted from 1994 only. It is also the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the petitioner is concerned, his service shall be counted with effect from 23.05.1990 and that he therefore would obviously be senior to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent received notice. He did not choose to make any representation. The University, which is the 2nd respondent also did not file any counter. Be that as it may, the question is whether the direction sought for by the petitioner can be granted. The learned Standing Counsel for the University-2nd respondent contended that the University Act envisages appeal in the event of grievance for any employee of the University including a Lecturer on the decision of the University. More important is the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 26.07.1999. The appointment of the 4th respondent into the senior scale was ordered to be kept in abeyance pending clarification from the Government through the proceedings dated 26.07.1999. Thus as on today, the 4th respondent being granted the senior scale has not materialised. When the 4th respondent has not even been put in the senior scale, the question of reckoning the 4th respondent as senior to the petitioner would not arise till awarding of the senior scale to the 4th respondent is finalised. I, therefore, consider that the very writ petition is premature. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in 1990 and 20 years have elapsed, the University has not taken any decision so far regarding the awarding of the senior scale and the inter se seniority between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. I consider that the grievance of the petitioner if any in this regard, shall first be addressed to the mechanism provided by the University Act and if the petitioner fails in obtaining relief, he would then be entitled to invoke the special original jurisdiction of this Court. I, therefore, consider that the writ petition for the present is premature and is liable to be dismissed. I, however, consider that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2nd respondent-University needs to act expeditiously to determine the seniority and awarding of the senior scale to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR 2nd December, 2010 PNV