IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.1094 of 2011 DATED:03.12.2011 Between: Shaik Habeeb Pasha, S/o Mahaboob, H.No.1-74, Kistapuram, Kesamudram station, Kesamudram Mandal, Warangal District. ….Appellant-Writ Petitioner And 1.The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Represented by Executive Director (Personal), Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bhima Marg, Mumbai, Maharastra State and another .. Respondents-Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.1094 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is directed by the appellant-writ petitioner against the order dated 23.09.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P.No.26192 of 2011 filed by him. The case of the appellant-writ petitioner is that he participated in the written test for the post of Peon in the respondent-Corporation and qualified. But he did not attend the interview conducted on 22.07.2011 on the ground that he did not receive call letter in time. Therefore, the appellant-writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent- corporation to fix a date and time for his interview. The case of the respondent-corporation is that written test for the post of Peon was conducted in the year 1996 and the appellant-writ petitioner was called for interview in the year 1998. However, when the interviews were proposed to be held, proceedings were instituted before various Courts. It is only on 18.01.2011, that the Honourable Supreme Court resolved the dispute and issued directions for taking further steps and accordingly the respondents initiated steps for conducting interviews. It is stated that the appellant-writ petitioner was advised to attend the interview again on 22.07.2011 vide letter dated 12.07.2011 despatched to his contact address available as per office records, but he did not attend the said interview. By an order dated 23.09.2011, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the present writ petition on the ground that quite a large number of persons were qualified and good amount of publicity was given and further the writ petitioner did not approach the respondent-corporation and hence the writ petitioner cannot be interviewed separately at this belated stage. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner and perusing the impugned order and other material available on record, we are of the considered view that the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge of this Court is quite legal and justified and, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, in the reply notice dated 26.08.2011 sent by the respondent-corporation to the appellant-writ petitioner, it is stated that call letters were sent to 352 candidates for interview on 22.07.2011 and out of it 142 candidates attended before the interview committee on 23.07.2011, because of bundh in the city on 22.07.2011. After conducting interviews the respondent- corporation has started processing the applications for selection. Therefore, it is for the respondent-corporation to take a decision as to whether it calls for interview once again for those who have not attended the interview or not. With the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 03.12.2011 Gsn.