THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:28958 of 2011 DATE:22.11.2011 BETWEEN NAGAN KRISHNA CHINTALA …PETITIONER AND THE VICE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:28958 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not selecting/appointing him as Traffic Supervisor Trainee under departmental quota of SC (W) by carrying forward the vacancy to SC (M) in GHZ/KZ as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the circulars and consequently, to direct the respondents to issue appointment orders to the post of Traffic Supervisor Trainee in GHZ/KZ to him. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Conductor on 6.2.1998 on compassionate grounds as his father died in harness in the respondent-Corporation while working as a Mechanic. While so, the 1st respondent issued a notification No:R2/684(17)/2010-HRD, dated 25.10.2010 for the recruitment of Traffic Supervisor Trainee and Mechanical Supervisor Trainee and in this notification, the posts are reserved for the external candidates and for departmental candidates separately. He submitted an application to the post of Traffic Supervisor Trainee and in response to the same, he was allowed for written test on 12.12.2010 and thereafter, he was interviewed on 1.2.2011 vide Hall Ticket No:11101155. But, he was not selected, which he came to know consequent to the publication of the selection. His further case is that he belongs to S.C community and as per the notification in No:R2/684(17)/2010-HRD, dated 25.10.2010, there is one post of Traffic Supervisor Trainee meant for S.C. (W) candidate and the said post is not filled up due to non availability of S.C (Women) candidates and therefore, he is entitled to the said post. But, the respondent is not taking any action in that regard. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Relying on clause 10 as to the filling up of the post of S.C. (Woman) with the male candidate in case of non availability S.C (woman) candidate, of the Circular No:PD 26/2004, dated 28.6.2004 issued by the Corporation, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since no woman candidate under the category of scheduled caste, is available, the said post can be filled up by a male candidate and therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 13.4.2011 to the 1st respondent seeking to consider his case for conversion of the post and the said representation is pending consideration. It is relevant to go through clause 10 of the Circular No: PD 26/2004, dated 28.6.2004 issued by the Corporation, which reads as under: “CLAUSE 10: CONVERSION OF ROSTER POINT OF WOMEN: In case there are no qualified women candidates available, the following procedure shall be followed: (a)If no eligible women candidate is available to fill up the roster point earmarked for Scheduled Caste (woman), the vacancy shall be filled up with the male candidate. However, while filling the said vacancy, the roster point shall be filled up with the same group of Scheduled Caste male candidate as that of Scheduled Caste (woman), to which it was originally earmarked. If no male candidate is available, then the same shall be filled up with other Scheduled Castes candidates following in the same order.” The learned standing counsel for the Corporation has fairly conceded as to the conversion of roster point of women in the light of the circular guidelines. But, he expressed that it is not known as to whether the said vacancy is meant for S.C (Woman) is unfilled and the same is vacant or not and therefore, in view of the fact that the representation has been made by the petitioner, the same may be directed to be considered by the Competent authority as per law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the representation made by the petitioner pending before the authorities and in view of the Circular in question, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it just and proper to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as per law within a period of four (4) Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:22.11.2011 Note: CC in one Week. (BO) gurc. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:28958 of 2011 DATE:22.11.2011