IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.18109 OF 2011 Date:30.06.2011 Between:- Gandamalla Santhosha @ Vanguri Santhosha .. Petitioner And Government of A.P., rep.by its Commissioner for Rural Development, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.18109 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to proceedings No.A/NREGS/CSP/Dlgs/2011 at Nalgonda, dated 31.05.2011, issued by respondent No.4 and set aside the same holding the same as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: Petitioner along with respondent No.5 and another ST candidate applied for the post of Customer Service Provider (for short, ‘CSP’). The application of ST candidate was rejected as she was a minor. He along with respondent No.5 appeared before respondent No.4 along with original documents. At the time of interview, officials informed that they should not be related to any of Voluntary Organization Office Bearers, Public Representatives, Government related functionaries, Sarpanch/MPTC/ZPTC etc. As the husband of respondent No.5 was elected as Upa Sarpanch of Surepally Gram Panchayat, the same was brought to the notice of respondent No.4 and also made a representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 15.02.2011 along with required proof to show that husband of respondent No.5 is elected as Upa Sarpanch of Surepally Grampanchayat. Respondent No.4 office called for the petitioner for interview vide his letter, dated 09.05.2011, directing him to appear on 12.05.2011 for CSP Selection. In response to the said call letter, he appeared before him and furnished all the required documents but respondent No.4, instead of appointing him as CSP, selected respondent No.5 as CSP by passing the impugned proceedings. He also brought to the notice of respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the selection of respondent No.5 is bad as the husband of respondent No.5 is working as Upa Sarpanch. Respondent No.1 issued circular on 26.08.2010 stating that the relatives of public representative, Voluntary Organization Office Bearers and Government related functionaries are debarred from making application. On 12.05.2011, the petitioner made representation to respondent No.4 as well as other respondents stating that selection of respondent No.5 is bad as she is relative of public representative. Respondent No.4 intimated that selection of respondent No.5 held on 01.02.2011 was cancelled on the ground that husband of respondent No.5 is Upa Sarpanch and as the husband of respondent No.5 submitted his resignation on 09.02.2011, respondent No.5 is selected though her selection was cancelled by letter dated 19.04.2011. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 should have seen that respondent Nos.1 and 2 issued circular/instructions only to see that there should not be any influence by public representatives on the officials for recommending names of the candidate but respondent Nos.3 and 4 gave go bye to those circular/instructions and appointed respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that selection of respondent No.5 was cancelled and therefore, she cannot be subjected to participate in the selection process, and so the selection of respondent No.5 is illegal; that there are guidelines framed by the Commissioner for Rural Development, dated 26.08.2010, for the purpose of prescribing norms for selection of CSP and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned proceedings. 4. As seen from the impugned proceedings, the respondents sent call letters to all the applicants whose applications were sponsored by DRDA and conducted the oral interview on 12.05.2011. All the persons attended the interview. After verification of the originals, respondent No.5 was selected, as she got more marks than other applicants. The petitioner also participated in the process of selection. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that earlier, the appointment of respondent No.5 was cancelled on the ground that her husband was working as a Vice Sarpanch and so, there is no need to call her for participating in the interview. For the reason that the husband of respondent No.5 has resigned to the post of Vice Sarpanch, the respondents called the petitioner to the post of CSP. It is not the case of petitioner that there is arbitrary action on the part of selection committee in selecting respondent No.5. Therefore, having participated in the process of selection, the petitioner cannot turn round and say that the selection is not as per the procedure established by law. Cancellation of appointment of respondent No.5 as CSP through order, dated 19.04.2011, is not under challenge. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30th June, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.18109 OF 2011 Date:30.06.2011 AMD