IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20774 of 1999 Between: N.T. Sridevi … Petitioner AND The Transmission Corporation of A.P., Ltd., Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad, rep., by its Member Secretary & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Anil Kumar Counsel for the respondents: Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20774 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in issuing appointment orders to the petitioner even though he was selected as Lower Division Clerk (for short, ‘LDC’) in the year 1994 and filling up 50% of the vacancies with the persons, who worked as contract labourers, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Heard Sri Anil Kumar for the petitioner and Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, who was sponsored by employment exchange, was considered for the post of LDC in pursuance of the employment notification issued for filling up of 23 posts. The petitioner along with other candidates, sponsored by employment exchange, was considered. As she was not appointed as LDC, she filed the present writ petition. As regards the prayer seeking invalidation of 50% reservation, I find no merit in it. The erstwhile APSEB, having taken into consideration various exigencies and following the understanding with the workers unions, issued B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 earmarking certain percentage of vacancies in different categories of posts such as Linemen, Helpers, LDCs etc. Being the employer, it is expected to take into consideration the interests of different sections of the persons in its service and create proper career prospects to them. Hence, in my considered view, reserving 50% of vacancies to those who have been working on daily wages, contract or temporary basis cannot be said to violate the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that though she is selected she is not appointed, the respondents in their counter affidavit stated that the petitioner is one among 112 candidates interviewed by the selection committee constituted by the erstwhile APSEB on 03.12.1993 and that in view of the ban imposed by the government, no further steps were taken to fill up the 23 posts. The petitioner has not filed any material in support of her contention that a merit list has already been prepared and that her name is included in it for being appointed. By merely appearing for interview, the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right for appointment. For that matter, even a selected candidate cannot insist for appointment, if the employer decided not to fill up the vacancies. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. However, from the facts noted above, in the counter affidavit filed as late as 16.06.2000, the respondents have taken the stand that permission was sought as far back as 10.11.1994 to prepare the selection list and fill up the vacancies. It is surprising that for six years they were awaiting the promotion. Having started the process, the respondents are bound to bring the selection process to its logical end. They cannot keep the candidates guessing for years on end. It is therefore desirable that the respondents shall take an immediate decision on the selection process, which was commenced as far back as the year 1993, if not already done, within a period of eight weeks from today and communicate the same to the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.12.2008 ES