HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.6247 of 2010 Date: April 13, 2010 Between: D. Chinnaiah, S/o. Bogadenna, aged 29 years, Scheduled Caste, Animela village, V.N.Palli, Kadapa District … Petitioner And District Collector, Kadapa District, and three others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Rozgar Sevak (Field Assistant) of Animela village, V.N.Palli Mandal, Kadapa District as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the respondents issued notification inviting applications for the post of Rozgar Sevak (Field Assistant) of Animela village. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he was selected by the selection committee to the said post, he was not issued appointment order. When the matter is taken up, on instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents that after selections were made, verification was done with regard to the antecedents of the petitioner. It is stated that the Assistant Project Director, Kamalapuram, submitted a report to the first respondent, District Collector, in which it is stated that as per the social audit, it is found that the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.15,000/- in the first round of social audit and later remitted back the said amount back; as such he was terminated from the post of Rozgar Sevak. From the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, it is evident that, at an earlier point of time, the petitioner was appointed as Rozgar Sevak and his services were terminated on the allegation of misappropriation of certain amounts. Though, in the selections made, the petitioner came to be selected again, coming to know of his antecedents, the first respondent has ordered to withdraw his selection. Merely because the petitioner was selected, he has no right to be appointed. After selections are made, it is always open to the competent authority to verify the antecedents before making appointment to the post notified. Though the petitioner was selected in the selections, however, on account of his antecedents, the appointing authority refused to appoint him in view of the allegation of misappropriation and termination of his services, at an earlier point of time, for the same post. In the aforesaid background, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be illegal, so as to issue directions as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. ____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 13, 2010 MRR