HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No. 33812 of 2010 Date: 18-01-2010 Between Vajja Sommaiah and others ……….. Petitioner and The Commissioner, Appeals, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others. …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No. 33812 of 2010 ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed challenging the validity and legality of the order, dated 04-08-2009 passed in O.A.No.7946 of 2003 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The case of the applicants is that they belong to different villages notified in the scheduled area of Warangal District. They applied for the post of Village Administrative Officer in the scheduled area of Warangal District in pursuance of the Notification No.A8/10382/97, dated 28-03- 1998 issued for 73 posts of Village Administrative Officers. The applicants were successful in the written test conducted on 20-05-1998 and appeared for interview on 25-08-1998. It is the contention of the applicants that according to the policy decision of the State, if an eligible native of scheduled area village is available, he should be preferred for the post of Village Administrative Officer of that village. But, contra to that, the applicants were not selected and outsiders to their native villages were appointed. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.Nos.7503, 7504, 7506 and 7508 to 7512 of 1999 and the Tribunal directed the applicants to avail the statutory remedy, by preferring an appeal to the first respondent therein under Rule 50 of the A.P. Village Administrative Officers Service Rules, 1990 (for short ‘A.P.V.A.O. Service Rules’). By that time, the respondents 3 to 10 therein joined in the posts. The applicants have filed the appeals and they were dismissed on 30-07- 2002 by the Commissioner (Appeals) of the office of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration i.e. the first respondent herein. Therefore, the applicants have filed the said O.A.No.7946 of 2003 challenging the order, dated 30-07-2002 and to declare the appointment of respondents 3 to 10 therein as illegal and to set aside the same. The Tribunal, having considered the submissions and the material available on record, dismissed the O.A. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. A counter affidavit was filed in the O.A. stating that a written test was conducted and 225 candidates were called for interview @ 1:3 and out of them, 70 candidates were selected on the basis of merit, by taking into account their performance in the written test and interview. The contention of the applicants is that as per the guidelines especially guideline No.9 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to Government and Commissioner, Land Revenue, in Ref.No.A4/3482/97, dated 02-02-1998, the candidate, who belongs to a particular native village, alone is to be appointed. The guideline No.9 is as follows: “In appointment, a native of the village will be given 1st preference, if no native of the village is available, native of the Mandal may be given next preference, if no candidate of that Mandal is available, native of the district be preferred.” The selections were taken up in accordance with A.P.V.A.O. Service Rules. Rule 6(1) of the Rules speaks about the reservations in scheduled areas. According to it, the persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes shall be appointed to the posts of Village Administrative Officers in the villages situated in scheduled areas. The said Rule does not further provide reservation by village wise. The contention of the petitioners counsel is that as per guideline No.9 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to Government which is already extracted supra, the petitioners who are natives of their village have to be preferred to others for appointment as VAOs in their villages. The Tribunal held that the above guideline No.9 becomes applicable for giving appointments i.e. for giving postings after selection process is over and it does not apply to the very selection process itself. Hence, it rejected the contention of the petitioners on that ground. The language of the above guideline No.9 shows that the said guideline is applicable only for appointments i.e. giving postings and it is not applicable to selection process itself and we agree with this conclusion of the Tribunal on this aspect. The record also shows that the petitioners did not come up in the merit list as observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 30-07-2002. In the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the O.A. and we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal. There are no merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J Date:18-01-2010 YCR