IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.24446 of 2002 Between: E.Shankaraiah. … Petitioner And The Chairman & Managing Director, C.P.D.C.L., Singareni Bhavan, Lakadikapool, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None Counsel for the respondents: Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 and 2 in absorbing the petitioner as Electrical Assistant Mechanic or in any other suitable post, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to absorb him as Electrical Assistant Mechanic or in any other suitable post. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, and perused the record. The petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No.2501 of 2000 with the grievance that his case for absorption in the organization of respondent No.1 was not considered in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-5-1997. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 13-3-2000, recording the statement made on behalf of the respondents that interviews were being held, with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court if he is aggrieved by his non-selection. After considering the petitioner’s case, respondent No.2 rejected the same by his order dated 8-5-2002. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner was interviewed on 3-2-1999 for the post of Typist and that as he failed to fulfill the terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-5-1997 and also T.O.O.No.137 dated 7-7-2000 his case for absorption was rejected. It is also stated that a detailed order setting out the reasons for rejection was served on the petitioner. A perusal of the said rejection order shows that one of the reasons for rejection was that even according to the certificate produced by the petitioner he was not on rolls as on 18-5-1997, which is a condition precedent for consideration for absorption in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-5-1997. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present to point out the illegality, if any, in the rejection order passed by respondent No.2, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order and grant relief to the petitioner. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:05-2-2009 MNR