THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.20034 of 1998 Dated: September 5, 2006 Between: O. Sammi Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, aged 35 years, C/o. Spandana High School, PO: Eight Incline Colony, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, and others. … Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. … Respondents Order: This writ petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the cases of the petitioners for the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers pursuant to the notification dated 15-03-1998 by relaxing the minimum qualifying marks as was done in the case of SGBT (Urdu Medium) Teachers as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Pursuant to the notification dated 28-01-1996, petitioners are said to have applied and attended the written test. It is stated that respondents have not issued any call letters to them. Their grievance is that as far as the posts of Urdu Medium SGBT teachers are concerned, the minimum qualifying marks have been removed and the candidates were selected accordingly; whereas, the same benefit is not being extended to them. It is stated that another notification dated 15-03-1998 has been issued by the respondents to fill up the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers. According to the petitioners, if the said posts are filled up, without considering their case, they would be put to irreparable loss. 3. The case of the persons who applied for the posts of Urdu Medium SGBT teachers is different to that of the case of the petitioners. The Government in the case of the SGBT (Urdu Medium Teachers) has relaxed the minimum qualifying mark and the same is a policy decision. The petitioners, who have not secured the minimum qualifying marks, have no right to question the action of the respondents in not selecting and appointing them to the said posts, more so when the candidates who have secured more marks than that of the petitioners were available. I find no valid reason to grant the relief as prayed for at this stage. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. September 5, 2006 MRR