THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6211 OF 2009 Dated: 19 .01.2010 Between V.Hari Krishna, Srikakulam District. … Petitioner And The Food Corporation of India, Rep., by its Chairman, New Delhi and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6211 OF 2009 ORDER : The Food Corporation of India issued a notification inviting applications for recruitment of senior/middle level management personnel for manning posts in its establishments spread through out India. In response to the same, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant General Manager (legal) under the Physically Handicapped quota. However, the 3rd respondent issued a call letter to attend the written test conducted for the post of Deputy General Manager (legal). Immediately, the petitioner made a representation dated 07.11.2008 bringing to the notice of the 3rd respondent that the hall ticket was wrongly sent to him to attend the written test for the post of Deputy General Manager (legal) instead of Assistant General Manager (legal) for which he had applied. Since there was no reply, the petitioner appeared for the written test held on 09.11.2008. Though he fared well in the written test, as there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner made another representation dated 11.03.2009 with a request to consider his candidature for the post of Assistant General Manager (legal) by correcting the mistake in the hall ticket sent to him. Alleging that the respondents failed to consider his request, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to consider the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Assistant General Manager (legal) under Physically Handicapped category. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it is stated that in the advertisement issued by the Corporation the Code number for the post of Deputy General Manager (legal) was given as 15, whereas for the post of Assistant General Manager (legal), the post code was mentioned as 16. However, the petitioner though applied for the post of Assistant General Manager (legal), mentioned the post code as 15. Since the computer reads only the Post Codes, the admit card was sent to the petitioner for the post of Deputy General Manager (legal). Thus there was no mistake on the part of the respondents and the mistake was only on the part of the petitioner in mentioning the correct Post Code. The plea of the petitioner that in spite of the representations made by him, the respondents failed to rectify the mistake has been denied and it is explained that the admit card was dispatched to the petitioner on 18.10.2008 and no representation was received before the date of examination i.e. 09.11.2008. It is also stated that the result for the post of Assistant General Manager (legal) was declared on 25.03.2009 and the same was already put on the Food Corporation of India website. In the additional counter affidavit dated 14.2.2009 filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is further explained that against the five posts of Assistant General Manager (legal) advertised, one post each was reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and Physically Handicapped and two were unreserved posts. After conducting written test, group discussion and interview, the selection committee selected only two candidates for the two unreserved posts and no suitable candidate was found suitable for the three reserved posts and those posts would be advertised once again. So far as the writ petitioner is concerned, it is stated that he appeared for the written test for the post of Deputy General Manager (legal) and he secured 55.25 marks out of maximum 120 marks. It is further explained that as per the notification, apart from the educational qualification, the candidate should have practiced at Bar for a minimum period of three years or five years experience in Legal work in Central/State Government or Public/Private section undertaking is required. However, the petitioner who passed LLB from Andhra University in the year 2002 had practiced as an advocate only for a period of 12 months during 2002-2003 and he joined as Assistant Development Officer in Handlooms and Textiles at Srikakulam in the year 2003. Thus, it was clear from the information furnished by the petitioner that he neither had three years practice at bar nor five years experience in Legal work in Central/State Government or Public/Private sector undertaking. As he was falling short by one month so far as five years experience in Legal work, he was found to be not eligible for the post of Assistant General Manager (legal). So far as the post of Deputy General Manager (legal) is concerned, it requires much higher experience and admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the said experience. Hence, the petitioner’s candidature was not considered and the said action of the Corporation cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal . I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. This Court, while directing rule nisi, by order dated 08.04.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.8120 of 2009, directed the respondents not to finalize the selections in respect of one post of Assistant General Manager (legal). While disputing the stand taken by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has been practicing continuously in the District Court, Srikakulam and other subordinate Courts in Srikakulam District since 06.11.2002. It is also contended that since a common written test was held for the posts of both Deputy General Manager (legal) and Assistant General Manager (legal) on 09.11.2008, even assuming that the petitioner had wrongly mentioned the Post Code as ‘15’, the respondents could have considered the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Assistant General Manager (legal) against the one post reserved for Physically Handicapped which still remained vacant. The record placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents shows that the petitioner while applying for the post of Assistant General Manager (legal), wrongly mentioned the Post Code as 15 instead of 16 assigned for Assistant General Manager (legal). In the circumstances, the action of the respondents in considering the petitioner’s candidature only for the post of Deputy General Manager (legal) cannot be held to be illegal. However, according to the respondents, the petitioner failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria and therefore his candidature for the post of Deputy General Manager (legal) was rejected. The petitioner could not dispute the fact that he did not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed for the post of Deputy General Manager (legal). However, it is contended that there is no embargo as such to consider his candidature for the post of Assistant General Manager (legal) since a common written test was held for both the posts of Deputy General Manager (legal) and Assistant General Manager (legal), it is also contended that since the one post of Assistant General Manager (legal) reserved under Physically Handicapped category still remained vacant instead of notifying the said vacancy afresh, the respondents ought to have considered the candidature of the petitioner for appointment against the said post. It is to be noticed that according to the respondents the petitioner was not qualified even for appointment as Assistant General Manager (legal). It is true that the petitioner has disputed the stand taken by the respondents and contended that he had satisfied the requirement of 3 years practice at Bar and produced certain material before this court to substantiate his claim, however such a disputed question of fact cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At any rate this Court will not substitute its opinion to that of the respondents which was taken on the basis of the material produced by the petitioner along with his application. Even otherwise since the action of the respondents in considering the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Deputy General Manager (legal) was found to be proper, no Mandamus can be issued compelling the respondents to consider the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Assistant General Manager (legal). For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date:19.01.2010 Klp