HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI W.P. No. 25082 OF 2000 Thursday, the Eighth day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between K.Raju Petitioner AND General Manager (Admn.), A.P. Power Generating Corporation Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI W.P. NO. 25082 OF 2000 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition questions the action of respondents in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Trainee Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) in the respondent Corporation vide Memo dated 31.10.2000, on the ground of not responding to the appointment. The petitioner is a postgraduate in Mechanical Engineering. He was selected as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) after undergoing selection process and was waiting for an order of appointment. But, without informing him of his selection, the respondents have cancelled his appointment along with two other candidates, vide Memo No. GM(A)DS(P)/AS(R).498-A/99 dated 31.10.2000 for the reason that they did not respond to the appointment orders till the date of issuance of the cancellation of their appointments, which is impugned in this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that when the petitioner had received the hall ticket and the call letter for oral interview on the same address, presumably it shall be deemed that he had the knowledge of appointment order also, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has chosen to deny the receipt of the appointment order. He, however, submitted that the cover containing the appointment order was returned un-served with an endorsement addressee left and, therefore, the respondents were forced to cancel his appointment. On 18.12.2000, while issuing rule nisi, a learned Judge of this Court has granted interim suspension of the order impugned. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that even assuming that the appointment of the petitioner is not cancelled by virtue of the interim direction, the life of the select list is only for one year and since the petitioner had not reported duty as on today, the appointment of the petitioner automatically stands cancelled, while it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner had no knowledge of his selection, the question of cancelling his appointment does not arise. In the backdrop of these submissions, it has to be seen whether the order cancelling appointment of the petitioner can be sustained. The Apex Court in its recent judgment in State of Orissa & Another Vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Others ([1]) in paragraph (15) has held that select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments and the vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required. It is also observed that a person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment, that the empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the select list in question cannot be treated as a reservoir so as to draw the candidates therefrom and appointed. That apart, as can be seen from the record, though the petitioner had obtained interim suspension as long back as on 18.12.2000, there is no information available on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he joined duty with the respondent Corporation or not. Therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision, the writ petition deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari July 8, 2010 MAS [1] JT 2010 (6) SC 33