THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.20129 OF 2009 Dt.22.9.2009 Between: Dr.Ramakrishna Krishnam … Petitioner And Government of A.P. rep. By its Commissioner, Department of Ayush Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.20129 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas v. Afzulpurkar) The petitioner questions the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6547 of 2009, dated 11.6.2009. He claims that he is a registered Ayurvedic Medical Doctor and has obtained degree of B.A.M.S from Osmania University in November, 1990. The petitioner submits that the Government of India has formulated National Rural Health Mission Scheme and the State Government, for the purpose of implementation of the aforesaid scheme, issued a notification dated 7.1.2009 inviting applications from the qualified registered medical practitioners. The petitioner submits that he has submitted his application together with all the requisite documents including proof of his registration as registered medical practitioner. However, his candidature was not accepted on the ground that his application is not in accordance with the notification and it does not contain the medical registration certificate as required. The petitioner therefore approached the Tribunal for issuance of a direction against the official respondent against excluding the name of the petitioner for selection to the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda) in preference to the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that he has submitted the registration certificate also along with the application form and as such the non-consideration of his candidature is illegal. In order to satisfy itself, the Tribunal had directed the official respondents to produce the original application form of the petitioner and on production thereof before the Tribunal the learned counsel for the petitioner was also satisfied that the said document was not produced along with application. On such verification, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner himself has not furnished the registration certificate and as such he is not entitled for any relief and accordingly dismissed the O.A. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and on earlier occasion on 16.9.2009 we had also directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the original application of the petitioner together with annexure. Today, when the matter is coming up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader has produced the original application form of the petitioner together with the three separate scrutinies made thereon. We have perused the said application and we find that though the petitioner has given details of registration and enclosed all attested xerox copies of other documents, but the registration certificate alone is not enclosed. Therefore, the scrutiny of the said application by the official respondent cannot be said to be incorrect as contended by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed before us the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 7.1.2009, which also shows the list of documents required to be furnished along with the application and the registration certificate with the concerned Board forms part of the said list also. The said requirement under the notification has not been fulfilled by the petitioner. Therefore, the official respondent is justified in rejecting his candidature at the stage of scrutiny itself. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal rejecting the O.A., cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Even otherwise, we have called for the original application and we satisfied that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner was justified. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 22.9.2009 kpr