THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.13583 of 2011 Dated: 30.04.2011 Between: S. Koteswara Reddy. .. Petitioner. And The District Coordinator-cum-District Collector, National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGP), Collector Office, Srikakulam District, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings, dated 04.07.2007, rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Field Assistant in the 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat, and also the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the representation, dated 15.06.2007, submitted by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Field Assistant in the 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that in response to the notification in Rc.No.54/2007/P4, dated --.04.2007, issued by the 1st respondent- District Coordinator-cum-District Collector, National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGP), Srikakulam District, inviting applications from the respective Gram Panchayats in the District for appointment to the post of Field Assistants subject to certain conditions, he submitted his application for the said post through the 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent forwarded four names, including the name of the petitioner, to the 2nd respondent for appointment to the said post, and the petitioner was sent for training. The petitioner asserts that even though he successfully completed his training, his case for appointment to the said post was not considered, and therefore, in this regard, he made a representation, dated 15.06.2007, to the 1st respondent and also another representation, dated 04.07.2007, to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent-Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Santhabommali, by his proceedings, dated 04.07.2007, informed the petitioner that one S.Satyanarayana and Dalli Seethaiah were appointed as Field Assistants for the 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioner is that though his name was forwarded to the 2nd respondent for appointment to the said post and he was sent for training, his case was not considered and also his representation, dated 15.06.2007, has not been considered till date. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri G.Elisha, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the 3rd respondent. If the cause of action is continuous in nature and the injury caused to the petitioner subsists till it is remedied or some relief is granted in his favour, the Court may entertain the petition and decide it on merits. Once the process of selection is completed, a select list has to be prepared. The inclusion in the selection list does not confer a right to be appointed. The posts notified were filled up in the year 2007 itself. There was abnormal delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is not vigilant and there is no diligence on his part in pursuing the remedy. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings, dated 04.07.2007, intimating the petitioner about the persons appointed for the post of Field Assistant for the 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat, but the petitioner, having kept silent for four years, approached this Court only in the year 2011. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits on the ground of delay and laches. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30.04.2011 v v