IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8672 of 1999 Between: V.Rambabu S/o.V.Pullaiah H.No.1-761 Police Lines Kadiri Anantapur Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Police Officer Anantapur 2 The Superintendent of Police Anantapur 3 The A.P.Administrative Tribunal rep.by its Registrar Purani Haveli, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari by calling for the records in OA.No.7176/1996 on the file of the Respondent No.3 and quash its order Dt.5th March-1999 as it is violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further declare that the petitioner is entitled for appointment as Police constable without reference to the criminal cases in which he was already acquitted by the Hon'ble High Court and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ORDER :: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WP No.8672 OF 1999 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy ) The order dated 5-3-1999 passed in OA No.7176 of 1996 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, is assailed in this writ petition. 2. The background facts leading to the filing of this writ petition by the applicant in the OA No.7176 of 1996, in brief, are:- 3. The applicant-petitioner herein applied for the post of civil police constable pursuant to the notification given by the respondents. The applicant appeared for the written examination and qualified for the interview. He appeared for interview, but he did not figure in the selection list. Hence, he filed the OA No.7176 of 1996 assailing the action of the respondents in not awarding ‘0’ marks in the interview. 4. The learned Tribunal, after going through the material produced on record came to the conclusion that the assessment made by interview committee cannot be subject matter of review and thereby proceeded to dismiss the OA by order dated 5-3- 1999. 5. Heard Sri M. Pandurangarao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the assessment of the selection committee awarding ‘0’ marks in the interview merely because of the implication of the petitioner in criminal cases, which ultimately ended in acquittal, is wholly unjustified and, therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment as civil police constable. 7. We have perused the order impugned in the writ petition. The learned Tribunal after going through the material produced on record came to the conclusion that assessment of selection committee considering the over all performance of the petitioner cannot be found fault. 8. In the counter filed by the respondents in the writ petition, the profile of the petitioner has been stated very gaily. The selection committee having taken into consideration the overall performance of the petitioner found him not fit for enlisting in the select list. We do not see any flaw in the assessment made by the selection committee. 9. In the circumstances, we do not find any flaw in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ________________________ B. Seshasayana Reddy, J Dated: 26-11-2008 Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TPK}