THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO.13751 OF 2000 13th November 2009 Between: B.Venkateswarlu. …PETITIONER AND The Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad and three others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO.13751 OF 2000 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy) This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari questioning the order dated 07.10.1999 in O.A.No.2018 of 1997 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein, the application filed by the petitioner herein was disposed of with a direction that, if in case the applicant has been allowed to undergo selection process, the official respondents are directed to communicate the marks and take further action accordingly. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the notification published on 28.01.1996 calling for applications for the appointment to the post of School Assistant, Secondary Grade Teachers and Language Pandits, he applied for both the posts i.e., School Assistant and S.G.T. Subsequently, he was called for interview and he attended the same. However, he could not be selected. He complains that subsequently, on 08.03.1997, without any fresh notification, the respondents called nine {9} candidates for interview to fill up four {4} School Assistant posts from the same D.S.C. 1996 and the petitioner’s claim was ignored, though he has appeared in the written test and successful therein and also appeared for interview in the earlier round of selection process. The respondents have filed a counter, inter alia, contending that the last candidate selected to the post of School Assistant (Social) in D.S.C. 1996 has got 70.5 marks and the petitioner has got only 66 marks. Hence, he could not come up under the zone of selection and therefore, his claim for consideration of his candidature is baseless. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents ought to have called the petitioner for interview by filling up the four {4} posts for which they called nine {9} candidates from the same list. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Education Department, issued memo No.4325/Ser-VI-A/96-5, Dated 05.02.1997, which reads as under. “With reference to the letter cited, the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is informed that there is no objection to permit the District Selection Committee to call for interview as per rule 13 (b) of G.O.Ms.No.221 Education, dated 16.07.1994 for filling up the existing vacancies etc. of teachers from the merit list of candidates of 1996 recruitment and where there are no qualified candidates left to be called for interview those posts be filled up with the candidates already interviewed and available in the panel as already instructed in the Govt.Memo No.3840/Ser.VI-A1/96, dated 19.08.1996. The proposal to accord permission to fill up all the vacancies over and above the waiting list of candidates duly relaxing the rule 15 of G.O.Ms.No.221 Education, dated 16.07.1994 is not necessary since the process of recruitment is not completed so far.” As seen from the above memo, the Government gave instructions for filling up the existing vacancies from the merit list of candidates of 1996 recruitment, but when there were no qualified candidates to be called for interview, they may be filled up by the candidates already interviewed and available in the panel, as already instructed in the Govt.Memo No.3840/Ser.VI-A1/96, dated 19.08.1996. Even as per the above memo, when there are no qualified candidates left to be called for interview, only such of those candidates, who are previously interviewed and available in the panel can be considered for filling up the posts. The petitioner was not qualified in the earlier round of selection process, though he was successful in the written test. He was called for interview, but he could not succeed in the said interview and therefore, he was not qualified. Even in the written test also, he secured only 66 marks, whereas the last candidate, who was selected, secured 70.5 marks. It cannot be said that the petitioner was eligible to be considered while filling up the vacancy subsequently. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is now aged 49 years. Having regard to the age of the petitioner and the selection process having taken place in the year 1996, any direction to consider the candidature of the petitioner, as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage may not serve any useful purpose and it is not appropriate to grant the relief sought by the petitioner in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction underf Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, it is held that the claim of the petitioner for consideration of his candidature is unsustainable. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ___________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J) 13th November 2009 RRB