THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.11995 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not appointing the petitioner for the post of Legal Officer and continuing the present officer though he is disqualified, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to consider his name for the post of Legal Officer. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: According to the petitioner, he is a retired District and Sessions Judge and working as President of District Consumer Forum, Adilabad District. The second respondent-Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, published a Notification on 07.05.2010 in Eenadu Telugu Daily News Paper inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the posts of Legal Officer and Assistant Legal Officers on contract basis for a period of two years. As per the said notification, the candidate should not be aged more than 65 years for the post of Legal Officer and more than 45 years for the post of Assistant Legal Practitioner. In response to the said notification, the petitioner applied for the post of Legal Officer with all necessary documents. Apart from him, two other persons including the present Legal Officer, namely, Sri Raghavan, also applied for the said post of Legal Officer. In the interviews held on 22.06.2010, the two other candidates, who are aged more than 65 years, were disqualified, whereas the petitioner was declared qualified. When he came to know about the filling up of posts of Assistant Legal Practitioners, he enquired the second respondent about the filling up of Legal Officer, but the officials did not disclose any information. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the present Legal Officer is aged more than 70 years and disqualified in the interview held on 22.06.2010, the second respondent is showing official favouritism by continuing him as Legal Officer and not filling up the said post. Hence, this writ petition. 3 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowment. 4. The post of Legal Officer in Endowments Department was notified on 07.05.2010 and in pursuance thereof, interviews were held on 22.06.2010. Though the posts of Assistant Legal Officers were filled up, the respondents did not appoint any person for the post of Legal Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the present incumbent, who is continuing as Legal Officer, has already crossed 65 years, the post of the Legal Officer may be directed to be filled up. 6. The petitioner has no right to compel the respondents to fill up the post of Legal Officer. It is for the respondents to take a decision whether to appoint a Legal Officer in pursuance of the notification or not. In the absence of infringement of any legal right of the petitioner, the question of issuance of writ of mandamus does not arise. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C. BHANU, J Date: 22.06.2011 va