HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.32367 of 2010 DATE:23-12-2010 BETWEEN Panday Balaji Prasad …Petitioner AND The Secretary to Government, Law (L.A. & J) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.32367 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Petitioner, who applied to the post of Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate for Railways at Rajahmundry pursuant to the notification, dated 21.9.2010, filed the present writ petition on the apprehension that the fourth respondent is gathering the antecedents of the respondents 5 and 6 and not likely to forward the name of the petitioner along with the respondents 5 and 6 to the respondents 1 to 3 for considering his candidature to the post of Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate for Railways. Hence, a writ of mandamus should be issued declaring the action of the second respondent in not considering the application of the petitioner and obtaining the antecedents of the respondents 5 and 6 for consideration of the respondents 1 to 3 as arbitrary and illegal and to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for the said post. Absolutely, there is no material on which basis the petitioner can maintain the present writ petition. It is only the apprehension of the petitioner that the fourth respondent is not likely to obtain the antecedents of the petitioner and obtain the antecedents of respondents 5 and 6 alone and forward their names alone to the respondents 1 to 3 for consideration of their candidatures to the said post. It is premature at this stage to presume that the respondents are not likely to consider the name of the petitioner and that he is one of the candidate who applied to the said post pursuant to the notification and in fact, he was also issued a call letter for production of certificates by the fourth respondent through call letter, dated 20.11.2010. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is premature and cannot be entertained at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. _______________ C.V.RAMULU, J. DECEMBER 23, 2010 Tsr.