THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU W.A.No.733 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard both the learned counsel and at their request, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for disposal. Having heard the counsel on either side, the only controversy involved in this writ appeal is in regard to the reference to the post of Assistant in the body of the Judgment in the writ petition as a non-selection post which, according to both the counsel, is not a correct statement of fact recorded. Further, it is also pointed out that the appellant is not aggrieved by the direction given by the learned single Judge. Accepting the submissions made by both sides across the bar and in view of the Regulations of the respondent-Institution, it is clarified that the sentence in the body of the Judgment to the effect that “the recruitment rules categorically show that the posts of Upper Division Clerk and Assistant are non-selection posts …………” should be read only as “the recruitment rules categorically show that the post of Upper Division Clerk is non-selection post …………..”. Therefore, the word ‘Assistant’ in the aforesaid sentence in the Judgment shall stand deleted. Subject to the above, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. It is needless to mention that the consequential benefits, to which the respondent is entitled to, would be in the light of the observations made in this order. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ Dr.G.YETHIRAJULU, J Date:08-11-2005 YCR