THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5801 of 2002 ORDER: Respondent No.1 issued a notification, dated 02.11.2001, inviting applications for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers. The petitioner submitted her application, but was not selected. Her grievance is that though the State of Andhra Pradesh amended the Service Rules providing for 33½% reservation in favour of women candidates in all categories, the said facility was not extended to her. She challenges the order in T.S.O.(GM(IR)-Per) Ms.No.268, dated 03.03.2001, which excluded the post of Assistant Engineer along with five other categories of posts from the purview of reservation in favour of women. Reliance is placed upon a judgment, dated 08.10.2001, rendered by a Division Bench of this in W.A.No.1038 of 2000. Heard Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Laxma Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner responded to a notification, dated 02.11.2001, issued for the post of Assistant Engineers. The respondents considered her case and on finding that there are more meritorious candidates, they did not appoint her. The petitioner would have stood a chance of being selected, had reservation been provided in favour of women. Each organization has its own set of rules for recruitment of the employees of different categories. Respondent No.1 issued a general order in T.S.O.(GM(IR)-Per) Ms.No.268, dated 03.03.2001, providing for 33 ½ % reservation in favour of women candidates in all categories of posts, except six categories, namely Assistant Engineer, Chemist, Sub-Engineer, Junior Lineman, Junior Plant Attendant and Watchman. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the exclusion of the post of Assistant Engineer from the purview of reservation. In this regard, it needs to be observed that respondent No.1 has the absolute discretion; firstly, whether or not to provide reservation in favour of a particular category, unless required by a specific binding enactment, and secondly, even where reservation is to be provided, it is entitled to decide the extent of reservation as well as the categories in favour of which the reservation can be made. Being conscious of the nature of duties, particularly to the specific posts, the respondents have excluded six posts from the purview of the reservation in favour of women. For example, the post of Junior Lineman involves arduous duties of climbing the poles that too by walking long distances in rough terrain and some times, during odd hours. How so ever desirable it may be to provide reservation in favour of women, they cannot be subjected to such duties. It is not as if the women candidates are totally precluded from being appointed against such posts. If they come on their own merit, they can certainly be selected. As a matter of fact, the Service Rules of the respondents are to such an extent that where the women and men are equally suitable for any posts, other things being equal, women shall be preferred. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any illegality in not providing reservation in favour of women candidates for the post of Assistant Engineers. The judgment in W.A.No.1038 of 2000 has no application to the facts of the case. No specific principle of law was laid down in it. Further, the re-organization of the erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board was taken into account and no specific relief was granted except by making an observation that in case there exists any vacancies, the case of the appellant therein may be considered against the suitable vacancy. That cannot be treated as a binding precedent or a clear ratio. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 21.12.2010. kdl