THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 15056 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner worked for some time as a Casual Labour in the then A.P. Electricity Board. The Board issued B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.5.1997, providing for regularization of services of Ex-casual labour, to the extent of 50% of available vacancies. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings, dated 6.4.1998, rejecting the cases of the petitioner and one Mr. Hanumaiah, on the ground that in the interview held on 19.6.1997, it was found that they were not able to read and write. Therefore, both of them filed W.P.No.16941 of 1998. The writ petition was disposed of on 21.2.2003, directing the respondents herein, to conduct a test, to evaluate the ability of the petitioner herein, to read and write. Accordingly, a test was conducted on 22.4.2003. Stating that the petitioner was not able to read and write, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings, dated 3.6.2003, rejecting the case of the petitioner. The same is challenged, in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The point urged by the petitioner is that while hearing W.P.No.16941 of 1998, this court had, in a way, evaluated the capacity of the petitioner, and a finding was recorded to the effect that the petitioner was able to read, but not able to write properly, and the reason mentioned in the order, runs contrary to that. As a measure to satisfy itself, or to verify the correctness of the reasons mentioned in the proceedings, dated 6.4.1998, this court examined the petitioners in W.P.No.16941 of 1998. While the 2nd petitioner was found to be not conversant to read and write, the petitioner herein was found to be in a position to read, but he expresses his inability to write. Obviously for this reason, this court directed that the petitioner be given another opportunity, and directed the respondents to conduct test, once again. The petitioner should have availed this opportunity and improved his skills of reading and writing. A categorical finding is recorded to the effect that the petitioner was not able to read and write. This court cannot sit as an appellate authority, particularly, when nothing malafide is attributed against the officials, who interviewed the petitioner. At any rate, the petitioner approached this court, 5 years after the impugned order was passed. This writ petition is clearly barred by lapse of time. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 14th July 2008 PAN