IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.17511 of 1996 Dated: September 19, 2006 Between: Adiraju Annapurna, D/o. late Ranga Rao, Aged 28 years, H.No.14-2, LIGH Quarters, Cheruvu Bazar, Khammam, Khammam District. … Petitioner And Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Hyderabad, and others. … Respondents Order: This writ petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as Special Teacher (Secondary Grade) as arbitrary and illegal. A consequential direction to the respondents is sought, to appoint her in the said post. 2. Pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents in the year 1989, for filling up the posts of SGBT/Special Teachers, the petitioner, who has offered her candidature and appeared for written test on 13-05-1989, claims to have been interviewed by the District Selection Committee. The petitioner has secured 48.60 marks in the said written examination. Her grievance is that several candidates who got lesser marks than her were appointed, ignoring her case. 3. Though no counter affidavit has been filed, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submits that in the category which the petitioner belongs to, the last candidate who was selected has secured 52 marks. 4. As much as the petitioner has secured only 48.60 marks, she has not been selected, as there were other candidates who had secured more marks than her. Further, the interview of a candidate is a supplementary test and not the exclusive test for assessing his suitability. It is to be seen, merely because the petitioner was called for an interview, it cannot be said that she is entitled to be appointed to that post. Recruitment of a candidate to a post may be based either on written examination or on interview or it may be a mixture of both. Further, if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of selection was unfair. I see no valid ground to grant the relief as prayed for. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. September 19, 2006 MRR