IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18791 of 1999 & 19661 of 2001 Between: Kaja Srinivasu S/o. K.Venkateswara Rao Yerramalla Branch Post Master a/w Vunguturu, S.O., W.G.Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Post Offices Tadepalligudem Division Tadepalligudem , W.G.Dist. 2 The Union of India Rep by its Director General Dept of Posts Dak Bhavan New Delhi.110001. 3 The Post Master- General Vijayawada Region Vijayawada. 4 The Union of India Rep by the Secretary Dept of Personnel & Traning , Ministry of Home Affairs Govt of India , New Delhi. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to May be pleased to issue a writ , order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ , order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus , declaring the notification , in Memo.No.B-10/253 Dt: 15-4-1999 , so far as in giving preference to ST/SC , categories in appointment of EDBPM of Yerramalla B.O., West Godavari Dist, as illegal , arbitrary , without the authority of law and contrary to the rules and Unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent authorities to finalise the selection for the post of EDBPM, Yerramalla B.O.,a/w Unguturu , West Godavari dist basing only merit and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO : 19661 of 2001 Between: Kaja Srinivasu, S/o. K.Venkateswara Rao. Yerramalla Village, Unguturu Mandal, West Godavari. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tadepalligudem Division, West Godavari District 2 The Post Master-General, Vijayawada Region, Krishna District 3 The Union of India, Rep. Director General, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi. 4 The Union of India, Rep. Secretary. Department of Personnel Training, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India New Delhi. 5 E.Balaiah, S/o. Ramachandram. R/o. Yerramalla, Vunguturu Mandal, West Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of Certiorari, call for the records of the 1st Respondent in Ref.No.B10/213, TGM-1, dated 30/04/2001 in appointing the 5th respondent as Branch Post Master of Yerramalla B.O., a/w Unguturu, West Godavari District, and the order passed in O.A.No.710/2001 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dated 07/08/2001, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the EDBPM rules, unconstitutional and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondent Authorities to continue the Petitioner in the post of EDBPM, Yerramalla B.O., a/w Unguturu, West Godavari District, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY. Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : VE & PSR, JJ. W.P.No. 18791 of 1999 & 19661 of 2001 Common order (Per V.Eswaraiah, J.) As both these writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner, involving a similar question for adjudication, both these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order: 2. The petitioner filed W.P.No. 18791 of1999, questioning the notification No.B/10.213 dated: 15.4.1998 issued by the first respondent. In the said notification applications were called for from the eligible candidates for selection to the post of Extra Departmental Post Master at Yeramalla with preference to candidates from OC/SC and ST. The petitioner herein also filed O.A.No. 775 of 1998 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad raising the question of reservations in the selection of EDBMs. It appears that the learned Tribunal dismissed the said OA., rejecting the contention of the petitioner vide orders date:10.8.1999. But, the petitioner herein, instead of questioning the order passed by the learned tribunal on 10-8-1999, sought a writ of Mandamus declaring the very same notification issued by the first respondent on 15.4.1999 relating to the recruitment of EDBMs, as illegal. The petitioner by suppressing the fact of questioning the very same notification before the learned Tribunal in O.A.No. 775 of 1998 and its dismissal, filed this writ petition quashing the same notification. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed. 4. W.P.No. 19961 of 2001 is filed by the petitioner questioning the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No. 710 of 2001. The petitioner filed the above OA, questioning the appointment of the fifth respondent as EDBPM of Yerramalla village a/w Unguturu, West Godavari District. It is stated that the fifth respondent belongs to SC category and as per the order of preference he was selected and his appointment itself was subject of the result in W.P.No. 18791 of 1999, which is dismissed by this court today. 5. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the report of the Justice Talwar Committee on Extra Departmental personnel system and summary recommendations, method of recruitment and conduct rules, the minimum educational qualification for the EDBPM should be 10 + 2; no weightage should be given for higher educational qualifications. It is further stated that the minimum educational qualification is only Matriculation; though it was recommended to raise to 10 +2 and the rule of reservation is not applicable. 7. But, as per recommendation No.30, it is recommended that the recruitment should be subject to the reservation quota for some categories as prescribed by the Government from time to time. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Assistant Director General (ED7TRG), Department of Posts, Government of India, issued instructions on 8.12.1997 with regard to the reservation of SCs/STs/OBCs in appointment of ED Categories and as per guide line No.1, the reservation for SC/ST/OBC in ED appointment is post-based and as such shall continue to be so and special attention shall be given while giving preference to SCs/STs. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that as per notification dated:15.4.1998 applications are invited from the eligible candidates for the post of BPM, Yerramalla BO for regular appointment among ST/SC/OBC category and in that order of preference, as there was shortfall in these categories in the said Division. As no eligible ST candidate was available from the list of candidates sponsored by the Sub- Employment Exchange, the above open notification was issued giving preference to ST/SC/OBC and in preference the fifth respondent was appointed. Challenging the said appointment, the respondent herein filed O.A.No. 775 of 1998 which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 10.8.1999, holding that similar contentions with regard to the Rule of reservation in favour of SC/ST/BC have been rejected on earlier occasions. The orders of the learned Tribunal passed in O.A.No. 775 of 1998 have been challenged by the petitioner before this curt in W.P.No.18791of 1999, which is also dismissed to day. 10. In view of all the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that these writ petitions are mis-conceived and the respondent herein (applicant in the OAs) is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________ V. ESWARAIAH, J. July 7, 2009. *BVS ________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.