IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.18704 OF 2011 Date:27.07. 2011 Between:- T.Kavitha .. Petitioner And A.P.Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad, rep.by its Managing Director and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring selection procedure adopted by the respondent Corporation in filling up the posts of Trainee Sub-Engineers with written test only without any oral interview, as per notification No.4/CGM(ADM)/2010, dated nil, by deviating from earlier procedure as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the respondent Corporation to change the selection process and follow the procedure as followed in the earlier notification in the year 2008. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is eligible and qualified to hold the post of Sub-Engineer in the respondent Corporation. In pursuance to the respondent Corporation’s notification No.4/CGM(Adm)/2010, dated nil, to fill up 350 posts of Trainee Sub- Engineers, the petitioner applied for the said post and appeared for written examination. The respondent Corporation placed the list of candidates, who secured the minimum qualified marks in the written test and further requested to submit the attested photo copies of the documents for verification. As per the notification, there is a written test consisting of 100 questions carrying one mark to each question and total marks secured in the written test are restricted to 50 marks. There is no oral interview and the selection will be on the basis of the merit in the written test and the weightage marks, as notified in the notification for different categories. The respondent Corporation issued notification for the posts of Trainee Sub-Engineers in the year 2008 wherein the selection of candidates for appointment of the said posts was on the basis of written examination and oral interview. The respondent Corporation deviated from the procedure as prescribed in the guidelines issued by the A.P.GENCO for recruitment. As per the said guidelines, there shall be a written test and oral interview, but the present notification has been issued by divesting from the prescribed procedure. If the present notification is allowed to be continued, the meritorious candidates would be deprived of appointment. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondent Corporation filed a counter denying the averments in the petition. It is stated that the petitioner is seeking a relief contrary to the conditions stipulated in Notification No.4/CGM(Adm)/2010, dated 05.01.2011 and the writ petition has to be dismissed. The respondent Corporation issued the said notification for recruitment of 350 vacancies of Trainee Sub Engineers, which includes all the branches viz., Electrical, Mechanical and Civil. Those vacancies include 40 backlog vacancies and 310 under general recruitment. The said vacancies are meant only for Engineering Diploma holders in Electrical, Mechanical, Electronics and Civil. At Column No.5 of the notification, it was specifically stated that the candidate should possess Diploma in Electrical, Electronics or equivalent in respect of Electrical, and mechanical in respect of Mechanical, and Electronics and Communication or Instrumentation in respect of Electronics, and in case of Civil, the candidate should possess Diploma in Civil Engineering. At Column No.7, the selection procedure was stipulated, which shows that 30 marks would be allocated against marks obtained in the qualifying examination of Diploma, and also weightage marks upto 10 for passing the qualifying examination of Diploma till the date of notification @ 2 marks per year, and stipulated written examination only. The respondent Corporation stipulated only written test for the purpose of selection for the post of Sub-Engineers. The Regulation No.2 of service regulations contained in Part-3 of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations (for short, ‘Regulations’), contemplates that the authorities can make appointment by way of direct recruitment by conducting written examination or oral interview or both. In the present case, they have chosen to conduct only written examination. The Regulation confers power upon the Corporation to choose any of the modes contained in Regulation No.2. Therefore, there is no illegality if they conduct only written examination for the purpose of selection. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the Regulation. When the regulation is empowering the respondent Corporation to choose any of the modes, it has got every right to stipulate only written test for the purpose of selection and it is not necessary or mandatory that it has to conduct interview also along with the written examination. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that several candidates have applied for the posts notified and for the purpose of fair and proper selection, oral interview ought to have been conducted by the respondent Corporation and therefore, selecting candidates through written examination only is improper and hence, prays to direct the respondents to change the selection process and follow the procedure as followed in the earlier notification in the year 2008. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation contended that the regulations stipulate for conducting written examination or oral interview or both and it is for the appointing authority to decide the method of recruitment and that the regulation is not under challenge and therefore, there are no grounds to allow the writ petition. 6. For filling up 350 posts of Trainee Sub Engineers notified by the respondent Corporation, one of the selection procedures is the written examination, which contains 100 questions with one mark to each question. Total marks secured in the written examination will be restricted to 50 marks. 1) Weightage marks of 30 will be allotted against marks obtained in the qualifying examination of diploma 2) weightage marks upto 10 will be given for passing of qualifying examination of diploma upto the date of notification at 2 marks for each completed year of passing 3) service weightage to contract labour worked in power generation stations of A.P.Genco i.e., 10 marks for service for more than six months and 5 marks for service for less than six months. The final merit list will be prepared taking into consideration the marks secured both in written examination and the weightage marks under average method, as mentioned above. The candidates, being ranked high in the final merit list, community wise, will be selected, as per rules in vogue. Therefore, the selection procedure is completely in accordance with the conditions laid down in the notification. The petitioner has no right to ask the respondent Corporation to conduct oral interview. Regulation 2(i) of the Regulations provides that the selections may be on the results of interviews or written examination or both. Therefore, the Selection Committee constituted for this purpose by the Board, has got a power to conduct either written examination or interview or both. This indicates that the appointing authority has every right only to conduct written examination only for the purpose of selection. The conditions laid down in the notification as well as Regulation 2(i) of the Regulations have not been under challenge. When the selection procedure, as adopted by the respondent Corporation, is completely in accordance with the terms and conditions notified in the notification as well as the regulations governing the recruitment conditions of the post of Trainee Sub Engineers, the question of issuance of mandamus does not arise. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. High Court of Delhi and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No.57 of 2008, wherein it is held at Para No.13 as under: “Thus, law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in case the statutory rules prescribe a particular mode of selection, it has to be given strict adherence accordingly. In case, no procedure is prescribed by the rules and there is no other impediment in law, the competent authority while laying down the norms for selection may prescribe for the tests and further specify the minimum Bench Marks for written test as well as for viva-voce”. But in this case, even the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner supports the case of respondent Corporation because the statutory rules prescribed the particular mode of selection and the respondent Corporation is completely following the norms prescribed in the regulation as well as the conditions laid down in the notification. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 27th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.18704 OF 2011 Date:27.07.2011 AMD