HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19489 of 2009 Date: 22.04.2010 Between: P. Ramakrishna. … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19489 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not considering his case for appointment as an Assistant Professor in Geology, which is a notified back-log vacancy for Scheduled Tribes, as illegal and arbitrary. By an order, dated 15.09.2009, this Court granted directions to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 22nd August 2009, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. A detailed counter affidavit is filed, denying the various allegations made by the petitioner. In the counter, it is stated that pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, the matter was placed before the Executive Council, and the Executive Council, in its meeting held on 27th of October 2009, resolved to the following effect: “Resolved to present the recommendations of the Selection Committee, together with the marks secured by the candidates at the time of interview before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, to seek its directions.” When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents has placed on record, the minutes of the Selection Committee meeting, from which, it is evident that the Selection Committee, which was constituted in accordance with the Universities Act, has interviewed the candidates, including the petitioner, and found the petitioner not suitable for appointment. As much as the case of the petitioner is already considered and as he is not found suitable for appointment, it cannot be said that his case is not at all considered, as pleaded by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, if the non-selection of the petitioner is not in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd April 2010 ajr