IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1422 of 2011 Between: N. Sunanda … Appellant And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1422 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is filed against order, dated 13.04.2010, in Writ Petition No.8111 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that interviews for the post of Conductor in Hyderabad region in 2007 and the selections were finalized in 2008, as such, the appellant is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the respondent Corporation has sent call letter through certificate of posting but the same has not been received by the appellant and directed the respondent Corporation to consider the case of the appellant for appointment to the post of Conductor in the existing vacancies. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that call letter was sent to the appellant, but she did not attend to the interview; that the selections were completed in the year 2008; that after a lapse of two years after selections, she cannot claim that her case should be considered and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. A reading of the impugned order would show that the respondent Corporation has sent call letter through certificate of posting, but the same has not been received by the appellant as such she could not attend the interview; that the interviews were completed and selections were finalized in 2008 and that the appellant approached this Court after a lapse of two years without valid explanation. In the above circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: 28.12.2011 ES