HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4871 of 2010 Dated: 31-05-2010 Between: Bommidi Rama Rao. … Petitioner And Acharya Nagarjuna University, rep. by its Registrar & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4871 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is an applicant in response to advertisement No.TS 3/2009, dated 11th September 2009, issued by the Registrar of Acharya Nagarjuna University, for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Law, seeks directions to the University to declare the result of his interview, held on 22.11.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that in the advertisement issued, one post of Assistant Professor in Law, was reserved to the open category Orthopaedically handicapped candidate with roster point No.56. It is stated that though the petitioner was interviewed and played well in the interview, the results of such interview are not declared. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1st respondent-University. In the counter affidavit, while giving the details of the posts advertised pursuant to advertisement No.TS 3/2009, dated 11.09.2009, it is stated that pursuant to the said notification, out of the applications received, as the petitioner alone has fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed as per the advertisement given by the University, a call letter was sent to him and he was interviewed by the Selection Committee on 22nd November, 2009. It is stated that the Selection Committee, which has interviewed the petitioner, has recorded the minutes stating that the lone candidate, who was interviewed, was not found eligible and the same was placed before the Executive Committee Meeting held on 27.11.2009, which has resolved to accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Along with the counter, proceedings of the Selection Committee and the further proceedings of the Executive Council accepting the recommendations of the Selection Committee, are also placed on record. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that no reasons are recorded for rejecting his candidature. From a perusal of the minutes of the Selection Committee, it is evident that after perusing the academic record/teaching experience of the petitioner, he was not found suitable. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the candidature of petitioner. It is further submitted that when the petitioner has applied under Right to Information Act with regard to the minutes of the Selection Committee, he was informed that the minutes of the Selection Committee cannot be furnished, as they are confidential. Though such minutes are not furnished to the petitioner, that itself is not a ground to interfere with the selection process. As the minutes of the Selection Committee are furnished before this Court, the recommendations of which are accepted by the Executive Council, I do not find any merit in this writ petition for grant of directions as prayed for. It is also to be noted that merely because the petitioner was the lone applicant, who was interviewed, that itself will not confer any right on the petitioner. As it was duly considered by the competent authority and as he was not found suitable, he was not selected. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 31st May 2010 ajr