THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.28189 of 2011 October 21, 2011 Between: G.Sujatha, W/o.B.Sri Ramulu ... Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.28189 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in Anantapur Municipal Corporation. The Accountant retired on 30.6.2009 resulting in vacancy of the post. The petitioner then made a request to the second respondent to place her as Accountant (Full Additional Charge). Considering the request, by proceedings dated 19.8.2009, the Joint Collector who was holding Full Additional Charge of the post of the Commissioner posted the petitioner as Accountant in-charge. Her performance in the said post was found to be not up to the mark as she was not able to finalise the annual accounts which were pending for the last thirteen (13) years. Therefore the second respondent issued proceedings dated 27.11.2010 posting the third respondent who is a qualified Senior Assistant as Accountant in-charge. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.8505 of 2010 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal passed interim orders on 02.12.2010 suspending the orders of the second respondent dated 27.11.2010 posting the third respondent as Accountant in-charge. The third respondent then moved VMA No.1756 of 2011. He also filed counter affidavit justifying replacement of the petitioner with him. Considering the rival contentions, the learned Tribunal took the view that keeping the third respondent as Accountant in-charge was only due to administrative expediency. Therefore the order of the second respondent does not warrant interference. The O.A. was accordingly dismissed. In this writ petition filed against the order of the learned Tribunal, the Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the third respondent is not qualified and, therefore, replacing the petitioner with another unqualified candidate is arbitrary and illegal. This is countered by the third respondent-caveator. A perusal of the order dated 27.11.2010 of the second respondent would show that the third respondent is qualified to hold the post of Accountant. This was also supported by the affidavit evidence by way of counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner that while the petitioner was holding the post of Accountant in-charge the third respondent passed Accountants Test for Local Bodies Paper I & II with Registration Nos.20211992 and 21102132. The said averment, therefore, remained uncontroverted and the petitioner did not make any allegation in the affidavit accompanying the O.A. to the effect that the third respondent is not qualified. In the result, for the above reasons, we do not find any grave error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) October 21, 2011 YS