THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Writ Petition No.31036 OF 2010 13-12-2010 Between: K.S.Venkateswara Rao ……….Petitioner And The Government of AP, rep. by its Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad and others. ………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Writ Petition No.31036 2010 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.Ravi Shankar) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, appearing for R-1 and R-2 and Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned counsel for R-3 and at their request, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 2. This writ petition is filed against the order dated 23-11-2010 passed by the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘Tribunal’) in O.A.No.8170 of 2010, upholding the order dated 17-11-2010 of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner appointing the 3rd respondent as Incharge Tap Inspector and placing him incharge of Wards 1 to 10 of Amalapuaram Municipality. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent herein without any qualification has been posted as Tap- Inspector and some of the wards, which are already within the jurisdiction of the petitioner, have been allotted to the 3rd respondent. He filed the above O.A. challenging the order appointing or posting the 3rd respondent as Tap Inspector. 4. We have gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal. 5. It may be noted that by the appointment of the 3rd respondent as a Tap Inspector, the petitioner has not been prejudiced in any manner and his emoluments are also not reduced. His grievance is that some of the wards, which were under his control, have been allotted to the 3rd respondent. But this cannot constitute a ground for the petitioner to question the order of the Tribunal. It is for the department concerned of the Government to make arrangements as and when the situation warrants. 6. In the circumstances, we find that the petitioner has no right to question the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Tap Inspector which was upheld by the Tribunal and there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated:13-12-2010 ________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR kvr