IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14862 of 1999 Between: 1 R.Amar Babu S/o. R.V.Babiah R/o. H.No.12/504. Kota Street, Proddatur, Cuddapah District. 2 P.V.Bhaskara Rao, S/o. P.Samba Siva Rao, R/o. EWS.55,B.K.Guda, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. 3 R.Thirupathi Rao, S.o, Chinnappalanaidu, R/o.625, BHEL Town Ship, Ramachandrapuram. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Chairman & Managing Director, AP TRANSCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Secretary, AP TRANSCO & A P GENCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in reducing the reserved vacancies earmarked to the B.C. Category by showing the meritorious B.C. Candidates against the roaster, is highly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Rule 22 of State and Subordinate Service Rules and consequently direct the Respondent to review the appointments made to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) vide Notification No.329/96, dated 1-1-1997, in terms of D.O.Lr.No.6195/Ser.A1/98-3, dated 12-10-1998 and consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and pass such other and further order or orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI B.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the respondents: SRI P. R. BALARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14862 OF 1999 ORDER: Petitioners, who are unsuccessful to get appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in the respondent Corporation, i.e. the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board, pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1997, filed this writ petition questioning the procedure adopted by the respondents in filling up the vacant posts earmarked for B.C. category. 2. By notification No.329/96 dated 01.01.1997, the respondents have notified 131 vacant posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board). Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioners offered their candidature, appeared for written test conducted by the Board and, on being qualified in the said written test, were called for interview, along with other successful candidates, in 1:2 ratio, but however, could not be selected for appointment. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the posts earmarked for B.C. category were reduced while making appointments and as such they could not get appointment. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that out of total number of 131 vacant posts, 20 posts for S.C. category, 8 posts for S.T. category, 4 posts for Physically Handicapped and 25% out of total vacant posts i.e. 32 posts for B.C. category were reserved. It is further stated that, pursuant to the selections, 40 candidates belonging to the B.C. category were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Electrical), and out of those 40 candidates, 8 candidates were appointed against O.C. category on account of their merit and 32 candidates were appointed in the posts reserved for B.C. category. It is further stated that since the petitioners secured less marks both in the written test as well as in the interview, they could not come up for selection even in reserved vacancies. 4. No reply-affidavit is filed by the petitioners controverting any of the averments made in the counter-affidavit. 5. As much as total number of vacant posts notified were 131, out of which 32 posts were reserved for B.C. category, and as appointments were made by filling up 40 vacant posts with the candidates belonging to B.C. category, it cannot be said that the posts reserved for B.C. category were reduced. In fact, apart from the 32 posts reserved for B.C. category, 8 more posts were filled up with B.C. candidates as they came up on merit. In that view of the matter, there is no basis for the allegation of the petitioners that the posts reserved for B.C. category were reduced. Though the petitioners are seeking review of the appointments made, the selected candidates are not made parties to this petition, in spite of the fact that the appointments were made in the year 1997. On that ground also, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY 13th August, 2008 IBL