IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 W.P.No.18356 of 2009 Between: G.Jayantha Kumar ….PETITIONERS and The Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Forests, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.18356 of 2009 ORDER:(Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR) The petitioner calls in question the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2240 of 2009 dated 17.07.2009. The petitioner filed the said O.A. seeking to set aside the Notification vide letter No.5165/2007/N4, dated 27.09.2008. The petitioner claims that he was working as a Community Extension Worker under the Vanasamrakshan Samithi. The 3rd respondent issued the notification vide letter dated 27.09.2008 referred to above inviting applications for the posts of Forest Beat Officers and Assistant Beat Officers. The petitioner who was in service as Community Extension Worker also applied for both the said posts. The selection process comprises of 3 stages, namely, the 1st stage, a qualifying examination in two papers is held and a minimum of 35% marks in each subject and an aggregate of 40% marks intoto is required to qualify, the 2nd stage is walking of 25 Kms distance in 4 hours, and those qualifying the two stages are interviewed by the Selection Committee in the third stage. As per G.O.Ms.No.348 General Administration (Services.A) Department, dated 15.06.1988, candidates in the ratio of a maximum 1:2 or 1:3 have to be called for interview based on the marks secured by the candidate in the written test. It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared for the written test but there was mass copying in the said written test and injustice was done to genuine and meritorious candidates and as such sought intervention of the Tribunal to direct fresh examination being conducted by am impartial officer and do justice to the genuine and meritorious candidates by challenging the notification of recruitment referred to above. A detailed counter affidavit was filed before the Tribunal by the respondents and it was stated in the counter affidavit that the selection procedure has been scrupulously followed and after the written test, the petitioner was, to the extent of post of Forest Beat Officer, found to have secured less marks than the highest cut off marks secured by the last candidate and as such the petitioner was not selected and so, for the stages 2 and 3 i.e. walking test and interview he was not called. With regard to the post of Assistant Beat Officer, the respondents have stated that the petitioner has secured only 98 marks out of 200 marks and the highest cut off marks secured by the last candidate who was called for the stages 2 and 3 is 137 and as such the petitioner also could not qualify in merit as he is at 17th place in the merit list for the said post. The respondents, therefore, stated in the counter affidavit that as the petitioner was not successful in the before first stage itself he was not subjected to the walking test and interview and there are no irregularities whatsoever in conducting the recruitment. The Tribunal has considered the aforesaid contentions and has dismissed the O.A. also on the ground that the petitioner having participated in the selection process cannot, now, attack the notification itself. This writ petition is filed challenging the said order of the Tribunal. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services II. The learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from reiterating the submissions as noted by the Tribunal, has also tried to impress us based upon the news paper reports which carried the news relating to mass copying in the written test etc. He also submitted that though the respondent worked as a Community Extension Worker for several years, instead of considering his case for selection, because he approached the Tribunal, he has lost the said post of Community Extension Worker also. As mentioned above, the counter affidavit mentions in detail every step taken by the respondents in the recruitment process and they have given the data regarding the marks secured by the last candidate selected and the marks secured by the petitioner and in view of the fact that the petitioner could not come up in the merit list he could not be selected. The said reasons given in the counter affidavit have not been controverted by any further affidavit. Further we cannot go by the news paper reports as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also true that the petitioner has participated in the selection process and just because he is not in the merit list after the written test and is not called for interview, he cannot turnaround and question the notification. The reasons given by the Tribunal for rejecting the O.A. are clearly sustainable and no interference is called for under our certiorari jurisdiction. However, so far as the petitioner’s grievance i.e., he was removed from the post of Community Extension Worker, is concerned, there is no material before us and even otherwise the same is beyond the scope of the O.A. and the writ petition. The petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to take such appropriate proceedings as advised for the said grievance. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J 14th October 2009 CVRK