HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6221 of 2010 Dated: 15-04-2010 Between: J. Veeresh. … Petitioner And The District Collector, Kurnool & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6221 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not filling up the post of Field Assistant (Rozgar Sevak) for Ternakal village of Devanakonda Mandal in Kurnool District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have issued an advertisement, which was published on 17th September 2009, in Proceedings No.NRGS/27/HRM/09, inviting applications to fill up the vacancy of Field Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that he has applied for the said post, and he was also interviewed, but inspite of the same, he is not being selected. Allegations are also made to the effect that one Mr. A. Bhaskar, who was working as a Field Assistant in the same village, has mis-appropriated certain funds, and the same is evident from the Social Audit conducted. 3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that though a notification, dated 17.09.2009, was issued, inviting applications to fill up the vacancy of Field Assistant, but, it is stated that the said vacancy was notified in view of the resignation tendered by the earlier Field Assistant by name Sri A.Bhaskar, who has resigned on health grounds. It is also stated that on the representation made by the said Bhaskar for revocation of resignation, the same was considered and he is allowed to resume duty, and as such, he resumed duty with effect from 04.12.2009. In the counter, respondents have also denied the allegation of misappropriation against the earlier Field Assistant by name A.Bhaskar, and they have further denied that they have interviewed the petitioner. 4. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner, Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, that once the notification is issued for filling up the vacancy of Field Assistant, it is obligatory on the part of respondents to fill up the said vacancy, and that the respondents cannot allow the earlier incumbent to rejoin. 5. It is not in dispute that earlier, one Sri A.Bhaskar was appointed as a Field Assistant in 2007. Though the vacancy was notified in view of resignation tendered by him on health grounds, but it appears, the representation made by the said Bhaskar for revocation of his resignation, was considered and accepted. Further, the respondents have also denied interviewing the petitioner. In that view of the matter, merely because the respondents have notified the vacancy, in view of the circumstances explained in the counter, by which, the earlier incumbent Sri A.Bhaskar was allowed to join as a Field Assistant, it cannot be said that the action of respondents in not filling up the vacancy pursuant to issuance of notification, is illegal. Mere making an application will not confer any right on the petitioner to claim for appointment, in the absence of facing the interview conducted by the Selection Committee. Further, in view of the fact that the earlier incumbent has already joined, no directions can be given as prayed for in this writ petition. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th April 2010 ajr