IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21651 of 1999 Between: Kishore TSPV, S/O. T.S.R.Rao, R/o. BHEL Township, Hyderabad-32. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Transco, rep. by it's Managing Director/ Member secretary, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, (Operation Circle) Medak, Sangareddy. ...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 one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to exempt the petitioner from appearing writ test which is scheduled to be held on 24.10.1999 for the post the Sub-Engineer in the light of Judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC-1115 and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Sub- engineer in the quota of apprentice trainees as per seniority from among the apprentice in requirement of Sub-Engineers. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to exempt him from appearing in the written test for appointment to the post of Sub-Engineer in the A.P. Transco., a State-owned company. 2. The respondent-A.P. Transco. issued notification dated 12-12-1997 inviting applications to ﬁll the vacant posts of Sub-Engineers by way of direct recruitment. As per the Engineering Service Regulations framed by the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board, the post of Sub-Engineer is to be ﬁlled up by conducting a written test followed by interview. The case of the petitioner is that as much as he is already trained as Diploma Engineer Technician Trainee, he is eligible for consideration, for appointment to the post of Sub- Engineer without appearing in the written test. Based on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 1115, he seeks directions to the respondents to exempt him from appearing in the written test. 3. It is not in dispute that the method and manner for making appointments to the post of Sub-Engineer is prescribed in the Engineering Service Regulations framed by the respondent-Company. As per the Regulations, the petitioner is required to appear for written test to seek appointment to the post of Sub-Engineer. Though the petitioner seeks exemption from appearing in the written test based on the judgment of the Supreme Court referred above, however, it is to be noted that in the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court, while giving the beneﬁt of circular instructions issued by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, has held that the persons receiving training in a workshop of State Road Transport Corporation need not appear in the written examination. So far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner herein seeks appointment to the post of Sub-Engineer in the ﬁrst respondent-Company and are no such instructions are issued by the respondent-Company either by way of circular or any proceedings giving preference to the persons who have undergone training as Technician Trainees. Therefore, the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot seek any directions to the respondents to exempt him from appearing in the written test and the same is in the domain of the respondents. In the absence of any instructions as in the judgment relied on by the petitioner, the said judgment will not render him any assistance in support of his claim for exemption. 4. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. August 25, 2008 MRR