IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17769 of 2008 Between: Bokka Poornachander S/o. Adinarayana R/o.9-7-177, Barlipet Area, Kothagudem, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Burma Camp, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 The District Employment Exchange, rep. by its Employment Officer, Khammam District at Khammam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents as being arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice while directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner for Interviw to the post of "PEON (Group-D)" in the 1st Respondent's Oﬃce to be held on 20.08.2008 or any other date without insisting that petitioner name should be sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 17769 of 2008 O R D E R: The very writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents as being arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice while directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to appear for the interview to the post of ‘Peon (Group-D)’ in the 1st respondent’s oﬃce, scheduled to be held on 20.8.2008 or any other date, without insisting the his name to be sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange. The grievance of the petitioner is that he registered his name with respondent No.2 herein. The 1st respondent has sought for sponsoring of the candidates from the Employment Exchange for the post of ‘Peon (Group-D)’, but the name of the petitioner was not sponsored along with others. Hence, this writ petition. While admitting the writ petition, this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner without insisting on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible. Therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive as of now. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 14-11-2008. MVB.