HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8111 of 2010 Dated: 13-04-2010 Between: N. Sunanda. … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8111 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was an applicant to the post of Conductor, pursuant to Notification issued in the year 2007 by the respondent-Corporation, seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not considering her case for appointment to the post of Conductor in Hyderabad region, as illegal and arbitrary. In 2007, respondents have issued notification, inviting applications to fill up the vacant posts of Conductor. After conducting interviews, based on the marks obtained by the candidates in S.S.C., and also considering their age, selections were finalized in 2008. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that though she has also applied for the post of Conductor, she was not called for interview, without any valid reason. It is stated that as the similarly placed persons were appointed, she approached the respondents and collected information by filing an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. The information furnished by the respondents on the application filed by the petitioner, is also placed on record along with the writ petition. A perusal of the proceedings, dated 27th February 2010, issued by the respondent- Corporation, indicates that a call letter was sent to the petitioner under Certificate of Posting for her appearance in interview to be held on 04.04.2008, but she did not attend interview on the said date. Now, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has not received any communication regarding interview. When the communication is sent to the address furnished by the petitioner under Certificate of Posting, the presumption is that the addressee must have received such communication. In any event, interviews are conducted and selections are finalized in 2008. Merely on the ground that there are some existing vacancies, the petitioner cannot seek for appointment, nearly after two years. There is also no valid explanation for approaching this Court nearly after two years. As the selections were finalized in 2008 after conducting interviews in 2007, the petitioner is not entitled now, for grant of any directions as prayed for in this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th April 2010 ajr