IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1495 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 14/10/2008 in WP NO : 21165 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: A.V. Ramakrishna S/o. Appa Rao R/o. Velampet Annavaram , East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 S.Moshe Rao S/o. Satyam R/o. 705, Subbarayapuram, A. Annavaram Shankavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P. Hyderabad. 3 I.V.Rama Kumar S/o. Gopal Rao R/o. Chairman Bungalow, Annavaram Shankavaram Mandal East Godavari District. 4 The Executive Officer, S.V.V.V.S.S. Devasthanam, Annavaram, Shankavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.B.RAMANNA DORA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The appointment of the appellant as Conductor has been challenged by respondent No. 1 in W.P.No. 21165 of 2008. Case of the present respondent No.1-original petitioner in the petition was that the appellant had been appointed without following any normal practice i.e., neither an advertisement was issued for inviting applications from suitable candidates nor names were invited from the Employment Exchange; and therefore the appointment was bad in law. On 25-9-2008, the learned single Judge found substance in the aforestated submission made by the original petitioner and granted ad- interim relief as prayed for. After hearing the concerned Advocates, the aforestated ad-interim relief was confirmed on 14-10-2008 and the said order has been challenged in this appeal. At the time of hearing of this appeal, we have put a specific question to the learned counsel appearing for the appointing authority as to how the present appellant was selected, but he could not give satisfactory answer and, therefore, we also find substance in what has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the original petitioner. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Learned Advocate for the appellant has made a request that the petition may be notified at an early date. It is directed that W.P.No. 21165 of 2008 be notified for final hearing on 16-3-2009. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th December, 2008. GRR