THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.5809 OF 2004 DT.11.03.2010 Between: A.Suresh Babu ……………..Petitioner Vs. The General Manager, A.P.Power General Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad and another …………………Respondents O R D E R: This writ petition is filed in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct qualifying examination as per the selection procedure prescribed under notification R.O.No.66/2003 by declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting written examination and finalising the selection process as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner is that he is an Engineering Graduate having passed B.Tech. (Mechanical). After completion of his Engineering Graduation, he has undergone training as an apprentice in the then A.P.S.E.B. in the year 1993-94. Thereafter he has gained experience while working with a private contractor of A.P.S.E.B., Tenali Division between 1994-98. The petitioner is having necessary experience in power plant management. The respondents have issued paper notification on 19.12.2003 inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) before 20.12.2003. Through the notification, it was directed for verification of website for further information. Accordingly, the petitioner after downloading the notification kept in the website has applied to the post of Assistant Engineer by enclosing necessary requisite material to the respondents on 14.12.2003 and 18.12.2003. It is his further case that he has made two applications with a view to ensure that he received hall tickets for the examination. As per the notification, two vacancies are earmarked for B.C (d) category. The basic educational qualifications required as per the notification is B.Tech (Mechanical) which is fulfilled by the petitioner. Similarly experience of 3 to 5 years is also mentioned in the notification. The petitioner has got five years experience in the then A.P.S.E.B. The petitioner fulfilled necessary requisite qualification and is fully eligible and qualified to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. The respondents have prescribed procedure for selection. It was mentioned that qualifying written examination will be conducted and person who acquires minimum qualifying marks will be called for the interview at 1:2 ratio. It was also mentioned that qualifying marks are 40%, 35% and 30% for O.Cs., B.Cs., and S.Cs., respectively. Therefore, as per the selection procedure prescribed in the notification, the selection will begin with the qualifying written examination and out of selected candidates interviews will be held to select the candidates. The petitioner has applied to the post within the stipulated time and he has been waiting for communication from the respondents. Nearly three months time has elapsed from the last date of application, the petitioner has enquired with the authorities and to his utter dismay and surprise it has come to light that the respondents have already concluded the selection process and appointment orders have also been despatched. It is his case that the respondents have blatently violated the procedure prescribed by themselves as per the notification. By glaring deviation from the prescribed procedure, the fundamental right of the petitioner, for considering his case for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), is denied. On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit, inter-alia, it is stated that the petitioner does not possess the P.G.Degree or Diploma in material management/operations/ management/industrial engineering. The selection procedure prescribed in the notification is as follows: “The candidates will be required to appear for the written examination at Hyderabad, only those candidates who qualified in the written examination and ranked high and community wise will be called for interview in the ratio of 1:2. It is also specifically stated that the minimum qualifying marks to be called for interview are for OCs. at 40%, for B.Cs. 35% and for S.Cs.30%.” The interview as proposed, was of group discussion in which the candidate’s aptitude, ability to communicate, the leadership qualities etc., will be assessed. In the said process about 371 applications have been received pursuant to the notification issued on 07.12.2003 and out of which only 3 candidates satisfied the qualification and experience as per the conditions of notification and 2 candidates have put in experience of 2 year 10 months and 2 year 6 months respectively in relevant field. As such, 5 candidates were proposed for consideration to the post of AE/Mechanical, material management. It is submitted that since the number of qualified persons are very less in number, the written test was dispensed with and interview was conducted on 05.02.2004. The writ petitioner’s case was not considered for the reason that he was not holding the required qualification and out of 5 candidates, who were called for the interview, 3 candidates were selected and appointed as Trainee AE’s/Mechanical and posted to respective generating stations. It is also stated that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.9015 of 1997 when direct recruitment was called for. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 3.11.2007 holding that the law laid down in UPSRTC’s case is to the effect that preference should be given to the apprentice over other direct recruitees, if other things being equal. It is further submitted that as the writ petitioner herein has failed to secure minimum marks in the written test or in the oral interview, he cannot stand on par with others and therefore the said writ petition was dismissed. It is also further stated that the writ petitioner herein again questioned the direct recruitment of Sub.Engineers in W.P.No.6378 of 1999 and it was disposed of on 31.3.1999 stating that to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sub.Engineer (any mechanical) by way of direct recruitment which shall be in terms of the guidelines laid down in UPSRTC case, provided he made an application within the stipulated time. It is further stated that the petitioner was given hall ticket No.25078 to enable him to appear for the examination scheduled to be held on 1.8.99. The writ petitioner herein also filed another writ petition No.4323/2000 questioning the recruitment of 25 posts of AE’s/Mechanical which was also dismissed on 21.6.2002 for default and suppressing the same, he filed another writ petition No.792 of 2003 requesting this Court for conducting separate test and interview for him to the post of AE and the same is pending. It is also stated that as the authorities felt that less number of candidates are qualified, the written test was dispensed with and selections were made through interviews. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot attribute any malafides in this regard. Since the writ petitioner did not come up for selection upto interview, the candidature was not considered and therefore there is no irregularity or illegality in rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have issued a notification dated 19.12.2003 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). The petitioner made an application in response to the said notification but he was not called for the interview. But lateron, he came to know that pursuant to the said notification, the respondents have already concluded the selection process and appointment orders have also been despatched. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification. The notification mentions the requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) as under: EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: a) B.E/B.Tech/A.M.I.E., Mechanical or equivalent qualification from any recognized University in India b) Post Graduate degree/Diploma in Materials Management/Operations Management/Industrial Engineering from a reputed Institute.” In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner does not possess the qualification of P.G.Degree or Diploma in Material Management/Operations Management/Industrial Engineering. Since the petitioner does not possess the requisite educational qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), I do not see any reason to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH J., Dt.11.03.2010 tjs