THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 9379 of 2010 ORDER: The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, the 1st respondent herein published a notification dated 26-03-2008, inviting applications to fill backlog vacancies, in the posts of Junior Assistants, reserved in favour of SCs/STs. The petitioners and several others applied and selection process was undertaken. Individual orders of appointment were issued to the petitioners, on 25-01-2008. It is stated that the probation of the petitioners was also declared. The Devasthanam issued show cause notices dated 11-03-2010 to the petitioners. It was mentioned that, in the SC general category, there existed 15 posts, and 8 posts in favour of SC (Woman) and on a wrong notion and understanding of the relevant provisions of law, no woman candidate was considered against any of the 15 vacancies in the SC general category. Similar situation is said to be existing in case of ST category also. Stating that the petitioners would not have stood for selection and appointment, had the rule been properly enforced, they were directed to explain as to why their services be not dispensed with. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the show cause notices. They contend that the Devasthanam has conducted the selection process strictly in accordance with law, and no irregularity or illegality has taken place in the process. The Devasthanam, on the one hand, and the impleaded 3rd respondent, on the other hand, filed counter-affidavits. The gist of their contention is that, in the SC general category, men and women are entitled to be considered, whereas the selection committee proceeded on the assumption that the 15 SC posts are exclusively reserved for men, and 8 posts are exclusively for women. It is also demonstrated that as many as 8 woman candidates, who were secured higher percentage of marks, than the petitioners, were denied appointment. Heard Sri S. Surya Prakasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Devasthanam, and Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The petitioners challenge the show cause notices dated 11-03-2010, issued to them. It is only when a show cause notice issued by an authority, not vested with the power, or where it is opposed to any specific provision of law, that this Court would consider the feasibility of interfering with the same. The very fact that a show cause notice is issued, discloses that the authority that issued it, has entertained a doubt, or idea, the enforcement of which, may result in hardship to the recipient of the show cause notice, and he intends to take the viewpoint of such person into account. By submitting explanation, the recipient of a show cause notice can put forward all his contentions, and endeavour to convince the authority. It is only when an order adverse to his interests is passed, that an individual is said to have suffered any grievance. The writ petition is without any cause of action. The apprehension of the petitioners that their services would be terminated forthwith, can be taken care of, by directing the respondents that, in case the orders, adverse to the interests of the petitioners, are passed, they shall not be enforced for a period of one week from the date of service thereof. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to submit their explanations, if not already submitted, and by directing that, in case any orders adverse to the interests of the petitioners are passed, they shall not be enforced for a period of one week from the date of service thereof. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25-10-2010. KO