THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2068 of 2002 ORDER: Respondent No.1 issued a notification on 22.02.1999 proposing to fill 222 posts of Junior Plant Attendant. Reservation in favour of various categories was also provided for. The qualification for the post was prescribed as pass in I.T.I. The petitioners submitted applications for the post. Petitioner No.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and petitioner No.2 BC ‘D’ Category. They secured 566 and 574 marks respectively out of 700 in I.T.I. Their grievance is that though respondent Nos.5 and 6, who secured 562 and 521 marks respectively, were selected, they have been denied appointment. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed a counter-affidavit narrating the sequence of events pertaining to the selection. It is stated that through a Circular, dated 06.10.1999, respondent No.1 proposed to give 40% weightage to the Contract Labour depending on the length of service, but the memo was set aside when challenged in W.P.No.23439 of`1999. It is stated that this Court framed a different formula and a direction was issued to the effect that such of the candidates who have been selected for appointment by extending 40% of weightage marks and whose orders are liable to be cancelled shall be continued on sympathetic consideration. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are said to be of that category. Reference is also made to the orders passed from time to time in the writ petition as well as C.C.No.1527 of 2001. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The notification was issued on 22.02.1999 for 222 posts of Junior Plant Attendant. After the notification was issued, the method of selection was altered by issuing Memo, dated 06.10.1999, provided for extending the benefit of 40% weightage in favour of the Contract Labour. This Court found fault with the Memo. However, a formula framed by itself was suggested providing for standardization of I.T.I. marks to 80%, allocation of 10% marks to interview and extension of weightage for Contract Labour to the extent of 10%. A totally different picture has come into existence. Added to that, a direction was issued for continuing the candidates who were selected on the basis of memo, dated 06.10.1999 on sympathetic grounds. This Court finds it difficult to extend any relief to the petitioners for more than one reason. The first is that the comparison in terms of merit is with reference to the candidates who were otherwise not eligible to be selected, but were directed to be continued on sympathetic grounds. The second is that a selection list as per the directions issued by this Court was prepared and only after it was approved, orders of appointment were issued. At one stage, this Court observed that it shall not be open to any candidate, who did not figure as a writ petitioner in W.P.No.23439 of 1999 to challenge the selection. In this background, no relief can be granted to the petitioners even if it is established that they were entitled to be selected on the basis of their merit. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 18.01.2011. kdl