THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.23882 of 2001 Date:03.12.2010 Between: V. Joshnson ..... Petitioner AND Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao Counsel for Respondents: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in History in the second respondent college in pursuance of notification dated 23.06.2001 issued by the second respondent by declaring the action of the second respondent in not selecting the petitioner for the said post as illegal and void. The claim of the petitioner is that the second respondent invited, by notification, applications for filling up of the backlog vacant post of Lecturer in SC/ST category. The petitioner is a post-graduate and he was also working as a part-time Lecturer in History in several colleges and belongs to SC (B) community. He applied for the notified post of Lecturer in History and attended for the interview on 19.09.2001 along with other candidates. He was placed in serial No.3, whereas inexperienced and less-qualified person was placed senior to him. The second respondent has not taken into consideration the merit and the qualification of the petitioner and as the proposals are pending with the first respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court for necessary relief. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the first respondent contending that in pursuance of the recruitment policy of the Government, instructions are given for filling up of the backlog post and the selection committee selected on merit, on the basis of the performance at the interview, the following candidates: i) Sri T. Manohar, SC-B ..M.A. 65.7% M.Phil and SLET ii) Sri D. Bikshapathi, SC-B ..M.A. 63.2% M.Phil and SLET iii) Sri V. Johnson, SC-B ..M.A. 60% M.Phil Since the petitioner has got less marks, he was placed at serial No.3. The petitioner has no right as such for appointment. Interim directions were given in W.P.M.P.No.30154 of 2001 on 20.11.2001 to the effect that appointment, if any, made shall be subject to the further orders in the writ petition. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for? The learned counsel for the petitioner does not seriously dispute about the process of selection and the marks obtained at the interview by the candidates. He does not also dispute the fact that mere possession of higher qualification is no ground for preference when the Rules does not provide. However, the counsel claims that in case any future vacancy arises, the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered. This request of the petitioner is untenable for the reason that the selection is based on a particular notification and the persons called for the interview qualified by the date of notification will only be considered. A selection once made is over and no benefit can be claimed for those persons who appeared in the selection. The request is, therefore, not tenable. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J 03rd December, 2010 GHN