IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18595 of 2008 Between: Immani Suryanarayana, S/o. I. Narayana, R/o. 49-54-17/3/9, Flat No. 301, Green View Apartment, B.S. Lay Out, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel & Amn. Reforms, New Delhi, Rep by its Secretary 2 Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Rep by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam. 3 Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Rep by its Manager (Operations), Visakhapatnam. .....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 any writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring he Employment Notice bearing No. 05/2008 dated 16-7-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India as well as being contrary to the Oﬃce Memorandum No. 22011/2/79-Esst.(D) dated 08-2-1982 issued by the 1st respondent; and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider my case in the vacancy arisen for post of Fire & Assistant Safety Officer (Class-II). Counsel for the Petitioner: R.RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner feels aggrieved by the notiﬁcation, dated 16.07.2008, issued by the second respondent, inviting applications for the post of Fire & Assistant Safety Oﬃcer (Class-II) reserved for Scheduled Caste. The petitioner states that on an earlier occasion, the second respondent issued a notiﬁcation for the identical post and though he was found to be more meritorious, he was not selected, which, in turn, gave rise to the ﬁling of W.P.No.13625 of 2006. It is stated that the writ petition was allowed on 25.06.2008. He contends that without implementing the orders of this Court in W.P.No.13625 of 2006, the respondents are trying to ﬁll the same vacancy through a different method. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. It is, no doubt, true that the second respondent notiﬁed the post of Fire & Assistant Safety Oﬃcer (Class-II) on an earlier occasion and the petitioner was not selected. This Court allowed W.P.No.13625 of 2006 setting aside the appointment of another incumbent and directed that the case of the petitioner be considered. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, on instructions, submits that the process of consideration in pursuance of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.13625 of 2006 is in progress and that the vacancy notiﬁed through the impugned notiﬁcation is totally a different one, that too, reserved for Schedule Caste. The apprehension of the petitioner is that consideration of his case in pursuance of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.13625 of 2006 will be futile, once the process of selection in pursuance of the impugned notiﬁcation is carried out. Basically, the petitioner does not have any right against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, it is evident that consideration of the case of the petitioner is at an advanced stage. Further, if the previous experience is any yardstick, the ﬁnalisation of selection in pursuance of the impugned notification would take months together. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents may go on with the process of selection in pursuance of the impugned notiﬁcation, but the ﬁnal selection shall be announced, only after conclusion of the process, pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.13625 of 2006. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:29.08.2008. Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl