IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7674 of 2000 Between: L.Suryanarayana S/o.Ramunaidu R/o.Merakamudidam Village & Mandalam Vizianagaram Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Post Offices, Parvathipuram Division, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram Dist. 2 The Sub Divisional Inspector, Post Offices, Cheepurapalli Vizianagaram Dist. 3 The Chief Post Master General, A.P.Circle, Abids, Hyderabad. 4 Madunuru Satyanarayana Raju S/o.Late Lakshmipathy Raju R/o.Merakamudidam Village & Mandalam, Vizianagaram Dist. 5 Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Near Public Gardens, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction or directions declaring the Order dated 12-04-2000 in O.A.No.563/1999 passed by the 5th respondent as illegal and arbitrary and to quash the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.S.VARMA (ADDL CGSC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7674 of 2000 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed by the 4th respondent in O.A.No.563 of 1999, aggrieved by the order, dated 12-04-2000, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in the said O.A. The brief facts of the case are that the post of E.D.B.P.M. at Merakamudidam Branch fell vacant with effect from 04-11-1996 on account of the death of the regular incumbent. As per the directions of the 1st respondent herein, the 4th respondent in the writ petition was provisionally appointed in the said post. The vacancy was notified on 26-06-1998, since no candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. In response to the said notification, four applications were received. The 4th respondent herein is one of the candidates. While recruitment process was in progress, the applicant in the O.A., the 4th respondent herein filed O.A.No.1270 of 1998 against non-consideration of his case for the said post as he claimed to be a physically handicapped person. The said O.A. was disposed on 30.09.1998 with certain directions and thereafter, the 4th respondent in the O.A., the present writ petitioner, was appointed in the said post and the 4th respondent in the writ petition challenged the said selection in the present O.A. The Tribunal vide order, dated 12-04-2000, disposed of the said O.A. with the following directions:- “The appointment of respondent No.4 is hereby set aside. Applications received in response to the notification, dated 26.06.1998 should be considered treating them as Ocs and the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A.No.1270 of 1998, should be applied in selecting the candidates as per the judgment dated 30-09-1998. Time for compliance is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the present incumbent of the post should be continued as a provisional appointee.” Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the 4th respondent in the O.A. This court, while admitting the writ petition granted interim suspension on 28-04-2000, which is still in force. Thus, by virtue of the interim order, obviously, the petitioner is continuously working in the same post. The 4th respondent in the present writ petition, who was applicant in the O.A. though served, did not appear. Under the above circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the present writ petitioner was interviewed, considered and appointed and is continuing in service for the last ten years and as there is no serious infirmity in his appointment, we see no grounds to set aside the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 21-07-2009 Prv