B KRISHNA REDDY Vs. VENKATESWARA UNIVERCITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri P. V. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Adinarayana rao, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the 3rd respondent. Sri O. Manohar Reddy for the 4th respondent and Smt. G. Jhansi for respondent Nos. 5, 7, 8 to 10, 12 and 14 have appeared and put forth their respective contentions on behalf of these respondents. Notices have been served on respondent Nos. 6, 11 and 13 also as per the record. No counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, 6, 11 and 13. Sri B. Narayana Reddy, advocate has filed vakalat on 28-04-1998 for respondent No. 15 but no counter has been filed.

(2.) IN WPMP No. 6822 of 1998, the petitioner sought to implead Dr. Bhupathi naidu and Smt. T. Vijaya as party respondent Nos. 14 and 15 to the writ petition, alleging that these respondents were subsequently appointed, pursuant to the selection consequent on the advertisement dated 20. 11. 1996, illegally without notification for recruitment and in violation of the norms. He filed another application i. e. WPMP no. 6823 of 1998 for amending the relief in the writ petition to seek invalidation of the appointments of respondents 14 and 15. As per the court record, on 5. 3. 1998 the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out notices on these proposed respondents by registered post, acknowledgment due and to file proof of service into the court (in WPMP Nos. 6823 and 6822 of 1998 ). These respondents have been served and have also appeared through counsel in the proceedings. The 14th respondent has also filed a counter. In the circumstances WPMP Nos. 6822 and 6823 of 1998 are formally ordered.

(3.) THE petitioner assails the conduct of the 1st respondent-University in issuing and acting upon an Advertisement Nos. E II (2)/ 1996 (Temporary) dated 20. 11. 1996 and E. II (2)/advt/iase-CSS/97- (1) dated 22. 2. 1997, as illegal and arbitrary and seeks a declaration that the appointment of the respondents 4 to 15 is illegal and void. At the hearing of the writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no appointments were made, pursuant to the 2nd advertisement dated 22. 2. 1997 and that in respect of the advertisement dated 20. 11. 1996, the respondents 4 to 13 and some others (respondents 14 and 15), were appointed. The challenge is thus confined to the appointments of respondents 4 to 15.