IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3528 of 2001 Between: Mohammed Gouse, S/o. Ramjan Ali, R/o. Srinivasa Talkies Road, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director/Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Transco, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Andhra Pradesh Transco, Khammam District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR M.H.PRASAD FOR MS.R.ANNAPURNA Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in appointing the petitioner for the post of Typist as illegal. While it is the grievance of the petitioner that though he applied for the post of Typist in pursuance of notification dated 28-04-2001, and he is entitled to be considered in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18- 05-1997, as clarified in Memo No. DP/DIR/DM (JR)/PL.II/181/96 dated 13-09-1997, in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Secretary (Legal) of respondent No.1-Corporation, it is stated as under- “Adverting to para 6 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner has applied for the post of Typist as per the notification dated 28-04-2001 and his case will be considered as per B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-05-1997 as and when interviews are conducted subject to his eligibility, the interviews are yet to be conducted.” At the hearing, Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, submitted that the respondents are not in a position to readily state whether the petitioner was interviewed and the selections were completed. In view of the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, as reproduced hereinabove, the respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioner under B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-05-1997, as clarified in the above mentioned memo. If they have not already considered the petitioner’s case, they shall consider and take appropriate decision. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for the post of Typist in pursuance of notification dated 28-04-2001 in accordance with B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-05-1997, as clarified in memo dated 13-09-1997, within a period of eight (8) weeks from today, and communicate the decision to the petitioner within the said time. The petitioner shall be free to question the decision, if he feels aggrieved by the same before an appropriate forum by availing appropriate remedy. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.15412 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th January, 2009 vrn