IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO.22233 of 2001 Between: Ch. Ananda Sagar S/o Ananda Rao, 39 years, Hindu, Department of English, D.D.E.S.V.University Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Collegiate Education, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 Smt. P.Prabhaavathi, The Correspondent, S.V.K.P.College, Markapur, Prakasam District. 4 N. Viswasa Rao S/o. Kamalaiah, Akkurupadu (V), Tanguturu (M), Prakasam (Dist). (R4 is impleaded as per court order in W.P.M.P.No.30107/01 Dt 19-12-01) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not interviewing the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in English in 3rd respondent college on 17-10-2001 on the ground that the petitioner has not reached the place of interview within time as illegal, arbitrary violative of Article 14, and 16 of the constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to conduct interview to the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in English in the 3rd respondent College forthwith and consider his care for appointment if he is meritorious among the candidates interviewed to the said post. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Mr. S.A.RAZACK. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO.22233 of 2001 ORDER: Heard both sides. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not interviewing the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in English in the third respondent-College on 17.10.2001. However, it is now represented that out of the total candidates called for interview, very few attended and the petitioner also not attended. Further, according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also the contesting respondent, it is submitted that the process of selection was already over and the fourth respondent has already been appointed. In view of the same, nothing survives in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to take any such further proceedings or steps or remedies available to him under the law, as against the final selection made by the respondents. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 15th December 2004 RRB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //True Copy// SECTION OFFICER Copy To: 1. The Commissioner, Collegiate Education, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. Two CCs to G.P. for Higher Education, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 4. Two CD copies.