HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 26338 of 2006 Date: 23.12.2009 Between: Y.Rajasekhar, Tirupati, Chittoor District. … Petitioner And Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam, Chittoor District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 26338 of 2006 O R D E R: The 1st respondent-Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam (T.T.D.) issued a notification dated 06.06.2006 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for various posts including the post of server (canteen) under S.T. category. As per the eligibility criteria prescribed, the candidate should have passed 7th class and should have served in a reputed hotel for at least one year. The petitioner applied for post of the server (canteen) and attended the interview on 23.09.2006. It is claimed that though he had secured highest marks among the candidates appeared for the interview, the petitioner was not given the appointment. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the T.T.D., though the fact that the petitioner secured highest marks has not been disputed, it is stated that the petitioner was not appointed since the experience certificate produced by him was found to be bogus on verification by the Vigilance and Security Department of the T.T.D. It is explained that whereas the certificate produced by the petitioner showed that he worked in the canteen run by one A. Madhusudana Naidu from 01.06.2000 to 30.12.2002 and 1.5.2004 to 1.5.2006, on enquiry, it was found that the said Madhusudana Naidu had started the canteen only on 02.07.2004. The said fact was also found to be correct on a detailed enquiry conducted by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, T.T.D. Thus it is contended that as the experience certificate produced by the petitioner was found to be bogus and not genuine, the petitioner’s candidature was rightly not considered. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record. It is true that the petitioner claimed to have worked in the canteen of A.Madhusudana Naidu in two spell i.e. from 01.06.2000 to 30.12.2002 and again from 01.05.2004 to 01.05.2006. Even if his experience during the first spell i.e. from 01.06.2000 to 30.12.2002 is not taken into consideration, in the light of the vigilance report of the respondents, the petitioner’s experience from 01.05.2004 to 01.05.2006 is sufficient to satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed in the notification. Since the respondents are not disputing the petitioner’s experience during the period from 01.05.2004 to 01.05.2006 it would be appropriate to reconsider the matter. In the circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s candidature for appointment against the post of server (canteen) notified in the notification dated 06.06.2006 and pass appropriate orders in the light of the above observations in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI,J. Date: 23.12.2009 KLP