Dr. Md. Burhamuddin, v. University Of Hyderabad Rep By Its Registrar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH **** WRIT PETITION NO.532 OF 2005 Between:
Dr. Md. Burhanuddin and others .. Petitioners and University of Hyderabad .. Respondent DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCEMENT : 28th JULY, SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 1.
Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Yes/No 2.
Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No 3.
Whether Their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the judgment?
Yes/No
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.532 OF 2005
O R D E R
The grievance of the petitioners in this case was that the University of Hyderabad was proposing to operate the panel/recommendations arising out of a Selection Committee which was wholly biased and was also incompetent, as ineligible subject experts were appointed thereto. The complaint of the petitioners was in relation to the selection and appointment to the post of Deputy Librarian in the university. A consequential direction was sought to the university to notify the vacancy of Deputy Librarian afresh and conduct a just, fair, legal and unbiased selection.
Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that the petitioners had earlier approached this court by way of W.P.No.9724 of 2004 and that the university had asserted before this Court that it had decided not to proceed with the notification dated 28.01.2004 in respect of which a complaint was made. The learned counsel stated that the said assertion was recorded by this Court in its order dated 10.12.2004. It appears, however, that the order passed in the aforestated writ petition was recalled thereafter.
Sri N.V. Sumanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent university, stated that as asserted before this Court, the university did not act upon the earlier notification dated 28.01.2004. He placed before this court the Minutes of the Executive Council of the university. Under Item No: EC:130:2005:5 it was recorded that the Council had taken note of the Court directions and after due deliberations, resolved to re-advertise the
post of Deputy Librarian. The aforestated Minutes are stated to be dated 15.04.2005.
Sri N.V. Sumanth, learned counsel for the university, further states that the post of Deputy Librarian was re-advertised thereafter and the second petitioner herein was appointed to the said post on 23.02.2006. He is stated to be working presently as a Librarian in the university upon further promotion. In so far as the other petitioners are concerned, Sri N.V. Sumanth, learned counsel, states that the first petitioner was promoted as a Deputy Librarian under the Career Advancement Scheme on 23.03.2006 and retired from service on 31.12.2014. The third petitioner was also promoted under the Career Advancement Scheme to the post of Deputy Librarian on 07.06.2013, while the fourth petitioner opted for voluntary retirement from the service of the university. In the light of the aforestated facts, it is manifest that the grievance of the petitioners as regards the filling up of the post of Deputy Librarian in the university stands redressed and no adjudication is warranted on merits at this stage.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 28th JULY, 2015 Svv