THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 1676 of 2004. ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in sending the proposals dt. 8.10.2003 to the 2nd respondent for approval of the same by the 1st respondent changing the date of joining of the 4th respondent as 6.11.1998 instead of 10.11.1998 with a mala fide intention to do favour to the 4th respondent as illegal and void and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as senior to the 4th respondent. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a teacher in an unaided post in the 3rd respondent school on 10.11.1998 and he has been discharging his duties as such in the said school and that at the time of his appointment, B.Saraswathi, K.Hari Prakash and C.Ramanjaneya were also appointed and out of them B.Saraswathi and C.Ramanjaneya left the school. As per the school record, the date of birth of the petitioner is 1.4.1972 and the date of birth of the 4th respondent is 15.6.1972 and the difference between them is only one month fifteen days and that the 4th respondent submitted his joining report on 10.11.1998 before the 3rd respondent and the same was accepted by the respondents 1 and 3 by putting their initials and service certificate was also issued to the 4th respondent showing his date of joining as 10.11.1998. Further case of the petitioner is that first preference should given to the State B.Ed., Certificate holders and that the 4th respondent completed his B.Ed., from the Bharateeya University, Tamilnadu and the said qualification is not equal to our State B.Ed., Course. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent in collusion with the 4th respondent is sending proposals by putting antedate of joining report of the 4th respondent to the respondents 1 and 2 for approval for regularising his services by showing his name at S.No. 4 though preference has to be given to him since he completed his B.Ed., from our State and that basing on the proposals sent by the 3rd respondent, without going into the merits of the record, the respondents 1 and 2 are going to approve the said proposals and if the same is approved, he would be become junior to the 4th respondent and therefore he filed the present writ petition seeking for the relief adverted to above. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 stating that the Correspondent, Vani Jayalakshmi Aided Elementary School, Dhone did not send any proposals to the 1st respondent by changing the date of joining of the 4th respondent as 6.11.1998 from 10.11.1998 and that as per the report of the Mandal Educational Officer, Dhone dt. 6.4.2005, the 2nd respondent received proposals from the Correspondent. It is further stated that the petitioner was appointed in an unaided post and his appointment was approved by the 1st respondent on 9.11.1998 and he joined the duty on 10.11.1998 and that the 4th respondent was also appointed in an unaided post and his appointment was also approved by the 1st respondent on 17.9.1998 and he joined the duty on 10.11.1998 and that both the petitioner and 4th respondent have signed the Attendance register on 10.11.1998, which was attested by the Correspondent of the School and that it is not known as to why the 3rd respondent issued appointment orders to the 4th respondent after so many days of the approval by the 1st respondent. The allegation of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent is sending proposals by putting antedate of joining of the 4threspondent is denied since no such proposals are received by the 1st respondent and that since no proposals are sent by the 3rd respondent, the question of approval of the proposals by changing he date of joining of the 4th respondent by these respondents does not arise and therefore it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that he was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 3rd respondent school in an unaided post on 3.10.1998 and that he joined the duty on 6.10.1988 and since then he has been discharging his duties. It is further stated that the petitioner was also appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 10.11.1998 by the 3rd respondent pursuant to a resolution passed by the Staff Selection Committee on 31.10.1998 and that his appointment was against roster point No.11 i.e. in O.C. (General) in an unaided post, whereas he was appointed on 3.10.1998 i.e. much prior to the appointment of the petitioner. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent has sent proposals on 8.10.2003 to the 2nd respondent including the names of various candidates including the name of the petitioner and the 4th respondent for placing before the Committee consisting of the Deputy Educational Officer, Mandal Educational Officer and Head Master from Zilla Parsihad High School for recommending them to grant-in-aid posts and that the said proposals are still pending before the above Committee and at this stage the petitioner filed the present writ petition by misrepresenting the facts. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is sending proposals dt. 8.10.2003 to the 2nd respondent for approval of the same by the 1st respondent by changing the date of joining of the 4th respondent as 6.11.1998 instead of 10.11.1998 with a mala fide intention to do favour to the 4th respondent and if the proposals are accepted, he would become junior to the 4th respondent. The very grievance of the petitioner is denied by the 1st respondent stating that the 3rd respondent did not at all sent any proposals as stated by the petitioner. The allegation of the petitioner is also denied by the 4th respondent. The petitioner failed to file any rejoinder to the counters of the respondents 1 and 2 affirming his grievance. The petitioner also did not file any material i.e. the alleged proposals dt. 8.10.2003 sent by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent in support of his allegation. In the absence of any documentary evidence, mere oral allegation of the petitioner, particularly in view of the fact that the allegation of the petitioner is denied by the respondents in their counter affidavits and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner failed to file any rejoinders to the counters of the respondents, cannot be sustained and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued merely on an oral statements. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J 27.01.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 1676 of 2004. ORDER: DT. 27.01.2011.