HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 5170 OF 2009 Between: The A.P. High Court Service Association represented by its President Mr. N. Chandrasekhar ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Registrar General , High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and one another .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of “Mandamus” declaring the action of the respondents in non- inclusion of categories-5 (a) & (b) of Division II of Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1975 as feeder category to the post of Junior Civil Judge in Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as illegal and arbitrary. While admitting the Writ Petition, this Court on 18.3.2009 passed an order in W.P.M.P.No. 6759 of 2009. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: “We are of the opinion that, for the time being, it is just and proper to consider the cases of Typists and Copyists working in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on par with the Typists and Copyists working in the subordinate Courts to apply for the recruitment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) by way of transfer, which will be subject to the outcome of the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on administration side, and consequential amendment of the existing A.P. High Court Service Rules. If no such amendment is made to by the date of selection, the Typists and Copyists of the High Court of Andhra Pradsh, applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), are not entitled to claim any right for appointment. Subject to the above, the WPMP is disposed of.” We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, there is a demand raised by the petitioner’s Association to include the Categories-5 (a) & (b) of Division II of Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1975 as feeder category to the post of Junior Civil Judge in Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2007. When there is refusal, then only the cause of action arises for seeking Mandamus. Here in this particular case, refusal has not taken place and the matter is pending consideration before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Hence, the Writ Petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner’s Association requests this Court to give liberty to pursue their remedies available under law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner’s Association to pursue their remedies available under law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN , J DATE: 30.06.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.