HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17224 of 2009 Date: 08.09.2009 Between: M.Ranga Rao, Kothagudem, Khammam District. … Petitioner And The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director, Kothagudem, Khammam District and another. … respondents HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17224 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is working as a Special Grade Clerk in the 1st respondent-company. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notification issued by the 1st respondent dated 12.11.2008 for filling up the vacancies of Junior Security Officer is arbitrary and illegal. As per the said notification dated 12.11.2008, five vacancies of Junior Security Officer (E-I grade) are sought to be filled up. Out of the five vacancies, two are earmarked for external candidates and three vacancies are earmarked for internal candidates. The eligibility criteria has been prescribed for the external and internal candidates as under: External Candidates : Degree or equivalent qualification with 55% marks and 5 years experience in Defence or related service in a supervisory capacity. Internal Candidates: Security/Vigilance Inspectors with Degree and 5 or more years experience in B Grade. The petitioner, who intended to offer his candidature for the post of Junior Security Officer, submitted his application within the time prescribed, through on line. However, the petitioner has not received any intimation from the respondents, though hall tickets have been issued to other candidates to enable them to appear for the written test. There is no response even to the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 11.12.2008. In the circumstances, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the impugned notification, under which the applications are invited for the three posts of Junior Security Officers earmarked for internal candidates only from Security/Vigilance Inspectors, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that so far as other posts such as Assistant Programmers E-1 grade and Junior Law Officer E-1 grade are concerned the internal candidates working in all the departments have been given an opportunity to offer their candidature whereas the posts of Junior Security Officer are confined only to the personnel of the Security/Vigilance Inspectors. According to the petitioners there is no justification to treat the posts of Junior Security Officers differently and therefore the impugned notification amounts to arbitrary exercise of power apart from being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also alleged that there are only three candidates working as Security/Vigilance Inspectors and the conditions in the impugned notification are tailormade only to suit the said three persons. It is further contended that the 1st respondent-company, which is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot adopt such arbitrary and discriminatory procedure and therefore, the impugned notification to the extent of posts of Junior Security Officers, is liable to be set aside. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that for induction of Security Officers, approval has been accorded by the competent authority that at any point of time, not more than 1/3rd should be from security discipline, 1/3rd could be from internal deputation and the remaining could be either on deputation from outside or lateral entry. Based on the above said policy, notification was issued among others for the post of Junior Security Officers. It is further explained that as per the recruitment rules and as per the policy approved by the competent authority, the eligibility criteria has been fixed for the post of Junior Security Officer and the allegation of the petitioner that the criteria has been fixed only to suit the convenience of three candidates is absolutely false and without any basis. The contention of the petitioner that there is an established procedure to call the candidates in the ratio of 1:10 for written test and 1:3 for interview has also been denied and it is stated that the said practice has no application for the present case. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the petitioner has been working as a Special Grade Clerk and therefore, he does not satisfy the eligibility criteria fixed for internal candidates according to which only the Security/Vigilance Inspectors are eligible. He is also not eligible to apply as an external candidate since he did not secure 55 % in the degree exam or equivalent qualification prescribed for external candidates nor he possessed five years experience in Supervisory capacity in defence service. It is apparent that the qualifications have been prescribed in the impugned notification keeping in view the nature of the functions to be performed by the Junior Security Officer. As the post sought to be filled up is a post of Security Officer, the action of the respondents in insisting applications only from Security/Vigilance Inspectors cannot be held to be arbitrary or irrational. Merely because the petitioner who is not qualified feels that some other terms would have been appropriate or logical, the impugned notification cannot be held to be bad or discriminatory. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date:08-09-2009 KLP