Judgment : 1. The petitioner is working as an Administrative Officer in the College of Food Science & Technology at Bapatla, established and maintained by the respondent-university. The post held by the petitioner is equivalent to that of Assistant Registrar. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare the action of the respondent in not complying with the mandate under the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules (for short ‘the State Rules’) and in particular, Rules 5 and 6 thereof in the matter of appointment to the posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar or its equivalent cadres as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He seeks consequential directions in this regard. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an L.D.Stenographer on 16.07.1983 in the University. He was promoted as U.D.Stenographer in the year 1995. Thereafter, he opted to be converted as U.D.Clerk. Permission for such conversion was granted in the year 2003. He approached this Court by filing W.P.No.25096 of 2003 in relation to the seniority in the post of U.D.Clerk. The writ petition was dismissed. Thereupon, the petitioner filed W.A.No.813 of 2009. The writ appeal was allowed holding that the petitioner was entitled for conversion to the post of Senior Assistant from 14.05.2000 and that he acquired eligibility for being promoted to the post of Superintendent from 14.05.2002. A direction was also issued to the effect that the petitioner shall be treated as senior to the unofficial respondent therein, who was promoted on 20.10.3003. Consequential benefits were also conferred. 3. S.L.P. filed by the University against the judgment in W.A.813 of 2009 was rejected. Accordingly, the petitioner was given notional promotion to the post of Superintendent and consequently promoted as Assistant Registrar. Monetary benefits were also extended. 4. The gist of the contention of the petitioner, who appeared in person, is that the appointment to the posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar in the University administration must be by way of selection and he ought to have been empanelled on becoming eligible notionally, for these posts. Monetary benefits were also extended. 4. The gist of the contention of the petitioner, who appeared in person, is that the appointment to the posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar in the University administration must be by way of selection and he ought to have been empanelled on becoming eligible notionally, for these posts. To be precise, he states that he acquired the eligibility to be empanelled for the post of Assistant Registrar on 06.11.2005 and on completion of two years thereafter, he became eligible to be empanelled for the post of Deputy Registrar on 06.11.2007 and similarly, for the post of Joint registrar on 06.11.2009. In this way, he contends that he would have become Joint Registrar by this time. He submits that gross injustice was done to him by the respondents, who treated the said posts, as promotion and not selection posts. He places reliance upon certain State Rules, according to which, the appointment to certain categories of posts must be by way of selection and not by promotion on the basis of the seniority simplicitor. 5. Sri T.Durga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University submits that the posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar are dealt with under the A.P. Agricultural University (Administrative and Accounts Officers) Services Regulations, 1981 made by the Board of Management of the University, in exercise of powers under Section 40 of the A.P. Agricultural University Act 1963. He states that the post of Joint Registrar occurring at category I is to be filled by promotion from the post of Deputy Registrar and that the same pattern is provided for the posts in Categories II and III viz., Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar. He further submits that the State Rules have absolutely no application for promotion to the posts referred to above and that they do not occur anywhere in those Rules. 6. The petitioner has assumed to himself, several facts and felt that gross injustice was done to him. He is under the impression that the posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar in the University administration are to be filled by way of selection and that had such a procedure been adopted, he would have been entitled to be given notional promotion up to the post of Joint Registrar, by this time. 7. He is under the impression that the posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar in the University administration are to be filled by way of selection and that had such a procedure been adopted, he would have been entitled to be given notional promotion up to the post of Joint Registrar, by this time. 7. The basis for the presumption of the petitioner is that he became Superintendent notionally in the year 2003 and on completion of two years in that post, which is also notional, he ought to have been empanelled for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar. He carried similar presumptions with a gap of two years up to the stage ofJoint Registrar. 8. The Regulations made by the University in exercise of statutory power clearly mandate that the appointment to the said posts is purely by way of promotion from the immediately lower categories. Therefore, one has to wait for his turn for promotion, after his seniors in the cadre. There is nothing to suggest in the Regulations that the State Rules apply for the appointment to the posts referred to above. Further, nowhere in the State Rules, these posts are mentioned. 9. Assuming that the appointment to the said posts is by way of selection, it is just unimaginable that a person, on acquiring the eligibility to be considered, would be selected or appointed, as a matter of course. It is ultimately for the Departmental Promotion Committee, wherever such provision is made, to select the candidate. The whole approach of the petitioner is untenable or is misconceived. 10. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.