HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4047 OF 2010 Between: K. V. Sivanjaneyulu S/o Venkata Subba Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The A.P. Administrative Tribunal represented by its Registrar, Hyderabad and three others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 23.09.2009 passed in O.A.No. 1143 of 2005 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal and quash the same as illegal. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the notification dated 28.12.1999 in respect of Group II Services recruitment, the petitioner applied for and appeared for the written examination on 26.8.2000 and 27.8.2000 and ultimately he was called for interview on 4.3.2004. The second respondent has published the marks list obtained by the candidates on 6.5.2004 and as per the marks list petitioner got 387.730 at Sl.No. 757 whereas the 4th respondent herein got 377.173 marks at Sl.No. 653, as they both belong to Zone III and BC(D) category. It is stated that the second respondent has published list of candidates zonal wise and post wise on 15.2.2005 and petitioner was shown under post code No. 6 i.e., Cooperative Sub-Registrar under A.P. Cooperative Subordinate Services in Zone-III whereas the 4th respondent herein was shown under post code No. 9 i.e., Excise Sub-Inspector under A.P. Excise and Subordinate Services in Zone- III ignoring the fact that the 4th respondent has got lesser marks thanthe petitioner. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, petitioner filed O.A.NO. 1143 of 2005 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by an order dated 23.9.2009 dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal ought to have sensitized that the respondents have accepted all the averments except that the petitioner has not filed the relevant certificates regarding the physical measurement, which is essential for considering the case of the petitioner for the post of Excise Sub-Inspector. He also contended that the Tribunal passed the order only on mere assumption and presumption, which is contrary to the record. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. This Court on 23.2.2010 directed the learned Standing Counsel for Public Service Commission to produce the application form of the petitioner together with enclosures. As directed by this Court on 23.2.2010 learned Standing Counsel produced the record. As seen from the record, the petitioner has not produced the physical fitness certificate, which is crucial for the post of Excise Sub-Inspector, which he opted. In view of the above, the Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects while dismissing the O.A. The relevant portion at paragraph 11 of the order passed by the Tribunal, reads as under: “In the circumstances, the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as Excise Sub Inspector, though he secured more marks than the 3rd respondent, has to be upheld as legal and valid. Therefore, it is clear that as the applicant did not produce the physical measurement certificates, as required for the post of Excise Sub-Inspector, his case was not considered by the respondents for the said post, and he was rightly considered for the post of Cooperative Sub- Registrar as per his merit and eligibility.” In the circumstances and also In view of the reasoned order passed by the Tribunal, we see no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD ,J DATE: 10.03.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.