THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.6355 of 2009 ORDER: (PER VE,J) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for APHC appearing for the first respondent, and Sri P.Naveen Rao, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. According to the petitioners, they have applied for the post of Attender pursuant to the Notification issued by the first respondent- District Judge, Rajahmundry, vide Notification No.1, dated 19.09.2007 for recruitment of 79 Attender posts. On receiving call letters, they have attended the interview on 16.02.2008 with all necessary certificates. But, to their utter surprise, respondents 2 and 3, who are less meritorious than them, were selected. It is stated that though the minimum qualification for the post of Attender is 7th class only, the first petitioner is having qualification of intermediate and the second petitioner passed 10th class. Apart from that, both of them are having driving licences. It is further stated that the second respondent is a resident of West Godavari District and he does not possess driving licence. Similarly, the third respondent, who is a resident of Guntur District, also does not possess driving licence. Therefore, the petitioners are more meritorious and they should have been preferred over respondents 2 and 3. It is further stated 20% of the vacancies can be filled up by local as well as non-local candidates. The grievance of the petitioners is that the selection process adopted by the first respondent is not fair and transparent and that the first respondent had erroneously chosen to select respondents 2 and 3, who are less meritorious than them. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the second respondent passed intermediate and also having driving licence to run Light Motor Vehicle (Car). He also produced the driving licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Tanuku to the second respondent on 10.09.2001. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the third respondent also passed intermediate and that though he does not have any driving licence, he is having experience in cooking. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the entire material available on record. Admittedly, the educational qualification for the post of Attender is only 7th Class. But, however, in the Notification it was stated that the candidates having driving licence and experience in Electrical, Carpentry, Cooking, Plumbing and gardening etc., will be given preference. The first petitioner and the second respondent are having qualification of Intermediate and driving licences. The second petitioner is also having driving licence, but he studied upto 10th class only. The third respondent also studied 10th class and having experience in cooking. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that respondents 2 and 3 have been selected under 20% quota to be filled up either by local or non-local and that there are several other persons, who have been recruited under non-local quota, but the petitioners have not chosen to implead them as party respondents. Insofar as the selection process is concerned, if less meritorious candidates are selected, it is for the petitioners to implead all of them as party respondents, but they have not chosen to do so. Insofar as qualification is concerned, more qualification will not have any preferential consideration. The minimum qualification for the post of Attender is only 7th class, but preferential consideration is only for the persons having driving licence and experience in Electrical, Carpentry, Cooking, Plumbing and gardening etc. The Notification also does not show that the persons having driving licence will be given more preference than the persons having experience in Electrical, Carpentry, Cooking, Plumbing and gardening etc. All the Attenders need not have the driving licence, as only few of them will be used as drivers. Further, Electricians, Carpenters, Cooks etc., are also required for better working of the department. Keeping in view the required number of persons having experience in cooking, electrical, carpentry, plumbing etc., the selecting authority can select the required number of the candidates. Further, no specific pleadings have been pleaded by the petitioners as to how they were discriminated or erroneously not considered. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent it is stated that as against the total number of 79 Attenders, the first respondent selected 76 candidates only. It is stated by the learned Standing Counsel that in the interview conducted by the first respondent, the first petitioner got 48 marks and the second petitioner got 56.5 marks, whereas, the second respondent got 88 marks and the third respondent got 92 marks. It is further stated that based on the said marks and taking into consideration the experience of the candidates in the particular fields, respondents 2 and 3 were selected. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the first respondent selected less meritorious candidates than the petitioners, who are said to be more meritorious. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 08.02.2010 Va