B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are working as Lecturers in Telugu Department in the first respondent-Sri Venkateswara University, tirupati. Respondents 5 to 8 herein were also appointed as Lecturers in the department of Telugu of the first respondent-University. They were posted to p. G. Centre at Kurnool. The P. G. Centre, kurnool, which was within the territorial jurisdiction of the first respondent sri Venkateswara University stood transferred to Sri Krishnadevaraya university by virtue of Section 6-A of the andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991 (for short the Act ) ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 5 to 8 exercised their option to remain in the services of the first respondent-Sri Venkateswara University. The first respondent-University by its order dated 8-5-1995 accepted the option exercised by respondents 5 to 8 to remain with the first respondent-University. According to the petitioners, there are no vacancies in the Department of Telugu in the first respondent-University. The first respondent-University has readily conceded the request of respondents 5 to 8 transferring them to first respondent- university by showing the vacancies in some other departments so as to get them transferred to the department of Telugu, though there are no vacancies in the Telugu department. It is the case of the petitioners that there are only eight posts of lecturers in the Department of Telugu, which are now occupied by the petitioners. It is their case that all of them are appointed prior to the amendment to the A. P. Universities Act in the year 1993. Respondents 5 to 8 herein cannot be brought into Telugu Department in the absence of vacancies. The permission granted to respondents 5 to 8 herein and their posting in the Department of Telugu would adversely affect their seniority, is the submission made by the petitioners. ( 3 ) IT is stated that the service of teaching and non-teaching staff in the matter of pxercise of option in accordance with section 6-A of the Act is regulated by the rules called "a. P. University Employees (Option and other Conditions for Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 1993 (for short the Rules )- The option is required to be exercised only in accordance with the rules. Rule 3 (i) of the said Rules says that on and from the date of transfer of the college or institution under sub-section (1) of Section 6-A of the Act, the staff working in such college or institution shall be given an option which shall be exercised within one month from the date of publication of these rules either to remain in the service of the parent University or to go into the service of the other University subject to the availability of a vacancy in the concerned subject/department in the parent/other university. Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 3 says that whenever a clear vacancy is available, the person opting to remain with the parent university shall be treated as an employee of the parent University after placing the matter before the Board of Management for approval. If no vacancy is available and the person opts to remain with the parent university he will have to wait till a clear vacancy in the subject/department arises, till then he shall be deemed to be on deputation to the other University. A period of five years shall be the maximum limit by which, if the vacancy does not arise, the person shall be treated as absorbed in the other University, after placing the matter before the Board of Management. Rule 4 of the Rules says that the inter se seniority of such staff members absorbed under Rule 3 vis-a-vis the staff members already working in the other University shall be determined by the Board of Management without detrimental to the interest of the staff who exercised their option for absorption in the other University as provided in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act. ( 4 ) IT is the precise case of the petitioners that there are no vacancies whatsoever in the Department of Telugu. Therefore, the option exercised by respondents 5 to 8 herein ought not to have been accepted by the first respondent-University. It is submitted that the option exercised by respondents 5 to 8 is accepted by the first respondent-University showing the vacancies available in the other departments. Such a course is not permissible in law. It is the precise case of the petitioners that the first respondent- university ought not to have accepted the option of respondents 5 to 8 in the absence of clear vacancies in the Department of telugu. Such a course is not permissible in law. It is the precise case of the petitioners that the first respondent- university ought not to have accepted the option of respondents 5 to 8 in the absence of clear vacancies in the Department of telugu. ( 5 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the 7th respondent who was working at P. G. Centre, Kurnool within the area of sri Krishnadevaraya University is the son- in-law of the 4th respondent who is holding the post of Deputy Registrar working in the establishment section of Sri Venkateswara university. It is submitted that even when the 7th respondent was appointed at P. G. Centre, Kurnool, there was no vacancy at all. Even at that time, the 4th respondent prevailed and a vacancy, which was existing in the Department of Physics, was shown as a vacancy in the Department of telugu and the 7th respondent was appointed and posted in the Department of telugu at P. G. Centre, Kumool. Once again at the instance of the 4th respondent herein respondents 5 to 8 including the 7th respondent are proposed to be posted in telugu department in the first respondent university contrary to the Rules. The same technique is adopted by the University by showing the vacancies in other departments as vacancies in Telugu Department. ( 6 ) IT is the case of respondents 5 to 8 that the petitioners have no right to object to the option exercised by them. Petitioners 5 to 8 were appointed illegally and contrary to the rules. The appointment of petitioners 4 to 8 would have to be declared as invalid. It is submitted that all the respondents are seniors to the petitioners having been appointed long prior to their appointment through a regular process of selection in the first respondent-University. It so happened that all of them were posted to F. G. Centre at Kurnool. The fact remains that they are the lecturers recruited in the Telugu department of the first respondent- university. ( 7 ) IT is submitted that the rules framed by the Government in purported exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of section 6-A of the Act are not in tune and in accordance with Section 6-A of the Act. The fact remains that they are the lecturers recruited in the Telugu department of the first respondent- university. ( 7 ) IT is submitted that the rules framed by the Government in purported exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of section 6-A of the Act are not in tune and in accordance with Section 6-A of the Act. The rules are to be read in conformity with section 6-A of the Act, and if so read, the university is bound to accept the option exercised by any staff member irrespective of the fact whether any vacancy is available or not. The University rightly accepted the option exercised by respondents 5 to 8 and the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity. ( 8 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent-University it is admitted that there are only eight posts of lecturers in telugu Department in the University and all of them were filled up and there is no vacancy in the Telugu department now. It is further stated that there is no likelihood of arising of any vacancy of lecturer post in the department of Telugu in the University in the near future or before five years as stipulated in the Rules. According to the university, it is an established practice in all the Universities that if any person is to be accommodated in a teaching post in a particular department, and if there is no vacancy in that particular department, the person so appointed will be shown against any other available vacancy in any other department. It is further submitted that the proposal made by the University to accommodate respondents 5 to 8 in the university College at Tirupati either by creating supernumerary posts in the concerned departments or by showing them against the overall existing vacant posts is pending in the Government. The petition filed by the petitioners is premature. In the counter, it is further stated that no final decision was taken by the concerned authorities to transfer respondents 5 to 8 to the first respondent-University. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri R. Subhash Reddy submits that the transfer of respondents 5 to 8 in the absence of vacancies in Telugu Department would adversely affect the right to seniority of the petitioners in the department. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri R. Subhash Reddy submits that the transfer of respondents 5 to 8 in the absence of vacancies in Telugu Department would adversely affect the right to seniority of the petitioners in the department. It is submitted that the acceptance of the option of respondents 5 to 8 is contrary to rules. ( 10 ) SRI B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the university as well as the contesting respondents submits that the rules are required to be read in accordance with the provisions of the Act and no staff member can be deprived of their legitimate right to exercise option merely because there is no vacancy in that particular department. It is submitted that Section 6-A of the Act does not speak about any vacancy position. ( 11 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, by the proceedings dated 8-7-1998 respondents 7 and 8 were transferred and posted as lecturers in the Department of linguistics and Performing Arts, S. V. U. College of Arts and Sciences, Tirupati in the existing vacancies. The 5th respondent herein is transferred and posted as Lecturer s. V. U. Oriental Research Institution, ( 12 ) THE Court finds it difficult to accept the submission made by the learned standing Counsel for the University that the option can be exercised by the staff without any regard to the availability of the vacancies in the department where the concerned has to be posted pursuant to the exercise of such option. Sub-section (2) of section 6-A of the Act clearly lays down that from the date of transfer of the College or Institution under sub-section (1) the staff working in such college or institution shall be given an option either to remain in the service of the University to which the said college or institution belonged prior to the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh universities (Second Amendment) ordinance, 1993 or to go into the service of the University to which the college or institution is transferred, in such manner and subject to such conditions as mav be prescribed by the rules made by the government in this behalf The manner in which option is to be exercised and conditions thereof are prescribed under the rules framed by the Government in purported exercise of the power under section 6-A of the Act. The rules framed by the rule making authority are perfectly in conformity with Section 6-A of the Act. In my considered opinion, no absolute right as such is given to any staff member to exercise their option irrespective of the fact of availability of vacancies in the concerned department. The rules clearly lay down that a person opting to remain with the parent university will have to wait till a clear vacancy in the subject /department arises, till then a person opting shall be deemed to be on deputation to the other University. A period of five years shall be the maximum limit by which, if the vacancy does not arise, the person shall be reated as absorbed in the other University. In the instant case, admittedly, there are no vacancies available in the Department of telugu. Therefore, respondents 5 to 8 cannot be transferred into the Department of Telugu in Sri Venkateswara University. Mere fact that they were also appointed in the Department of Telugu prior to the petitioners is of no consequence. As on the date of the Amendment Act coming into force, the P. G. Centre at Kurnool stood transferred to Sri Krishnadevaraya university and by virtue of such transfer respondents 5 to 8 have become the employees of Sri Krishnadevaraya university, of course, subject to the option available to be exercised by them. But such option can be exercised subject to availability of vacancies. The decision of the university in accepting the option by itself may not suffer from any irregularity as such, but their actual transfer treating respondents 5 to 8 as lecturers in Telugu department suffers from incurable legal infirmity. Respondents 5 to 8 have to wait till the vacancies arise in the Telugu department. They cannot be brought into the Telugu Department to replace the existing lecturers already working in the university. The decision of the University, in my considered opinion, is clearly contrary to the rules. The rules framed are in conformity with Section 6-A of the Act, section 6-A of the Act does not confer any absolute and unfettered right upon any staff member to exercise option irrespective of availability of vacancies. The option can be exercised only in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules made by the Government. The option can be exercised only in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules made by the Government. The decision of the University in transferring respondents 5 to 8 suffers from incurable legal infirmity. ( 13 ) BUT the fact remains that respondents 5, 7 and 8 are already brought into the services of the first respondent-University and posted in the departments other than telugu. There is nothing available on record as to whether the 6th respondent is also actually brought into the services of the first respondent-University. The counteraffidavit filed by the first respondent university is absolutely vague and indefinite in its terms. The counter-affidavit filed by respondents 5 to 8 does not reveal as to whether the 6th respondent is also brought into the services of Sri venkateswara University in the department of Telugu. ( 14 ) BE that as it may respondents 5 to 8 herein cannot be brought into the department of Telugu in the absence of clear vacancies. They can only be transferred and posted in the Department of telugu as and when vacancies arise within the prescribed period of five years. In the circumstances, it is declared that respondents 5 to 8 herein shall have no lien whatsoever in the Department of Telugu in which the petitioners are working. ( 15 ) IT is rather surprising to notice that the first respondent-University having accepted the option exercised by respondents 5 to 8 transferred respondents 5, 7 and 8 and posted them in some other departments though they are the lecturers appointed in Telugu Department. Nothing is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by either the first respondent-University or respondents 5 to 8 as to how their seniority in the said department would be reckoned or counted for future purposes. But the court need not interfere with such postings at the instance of the petitioners herein so long as such transfers and postings in other departments does not afreet the rights of the petitioners in Telugu Department. ( 16 ) A word about the averments made against the 4th respondent in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the writ petition. Specific allegations are made against him to the effect that he is instrumental in the University accepting option of respondents 5 to 8. ( 16 ) A word about the averments made against the 4th respondent in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the writ petition. Specific allegations are made against him to the effect that he is instrumental in the University accepting option of respondents 5 to 8. It is alleged that such a decision was taken to suit the convenience of respondent No. 7 who is none other than the son-in-law of respondent No. 4. The allegations are not denied by respondent No. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed by him. The allegations are deemed to have been admitted by respondent No. 4. But it is not necessary to go further into the matter since the 4th respondent is stated to have retired on 30-6-1996. ( 17 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of declaring that the posting of respondents herein to other departments of the first respondent university shall in no manner affect the seniority of the petitioners in the department of Telugu in the first respondent-University. Respondents 5 to 8 herein cannot be brought into Telugu department unless clear vacancies arise for such absorption and appointment of respondents 5 to 8 in Telugu Department within the prescribed period under the rules. ( 18 ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.