IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6273 of 2009 Between: A.Mallikarjuna, S/o. Malakondaiah, R/o. timmareddy Palem Village and Post, Lingasamudram mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COPORATION, Rep by its Managing Director, Musherabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.BRAHMA REDDY Counsel for the respondents:MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not conducting interview to the petitioner for the post of Driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on contract basis as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims to be qualified for being considered for the post of Driver. He averred in his affidavit that in pursuance of the notification published in the newspapers inviting applications for appointment of Drivers on contract basis issued by the respondents, the petitioner applied to respondent No.2 and that the latter sent communication, dated 03.02.2009 requiring the petitioner to attend interview scheduled for 12.02.2009 at 10.30 a.m. According to the petitioner, he received the said communication on 09.03.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he approached respondent No.2 with a request to conduct interview, the said request has not been heeded to by respondent No.2. Heard Sri M.Brahma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. If the petitioner received communication after the scheduled date of interview, fairness requires that respondent No.2 shall consider the petitioner’s case, if he had applied within the time and subject to the availability of vacancies. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment of Driver on contract basis, if he made his application within time in response to the notification issued by the respondents and he had not received communication, dated 03.02.2009 before 12.02.2009. This exercise shall be completed by respondent No.2 after giving notice to the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.8193 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th MARCH, 2009. kvni