THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.25693 of 2008 Dated: 23.12.2009 Between: Mohd. Sayeed Hussain … Petitioner And 1. The Project Director, District Water Management Authority, Warangal., and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.25693 of 2008 ORDER: The Centre for development studies, A.P. Academy of Rural Development, Hyderabad, issued a notification dated 7.2.2006 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment of Programme Officers under A.P. Rural Employment Scheme. So far as the Warangal District is concerned, 38 posts were notified. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, who claims to have satisfied the eligibility criteria, applied and appeared for the written test as well as the oral interview. However he was not given the appointment and aggrieved by the same this writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not appointing him as Programme Officer is arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded by the petitioner that he secured 32 marks in the written test and he was the only candidate under BC-E category and therefore there was no reason to reject his candidature. It is contended that the action of the respondents in not earmarking any vacancy to BC-E category and consequently denying him appointment is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent – Project Director, DWMA, Warangal – it is explained that the candidates successful in the written test were called for interview in the ratio of 1 : 3 under Merit-cum-Roster procedure. It is further stated that though the petitioner had applied under BC-E category, the same could not be considered as by the date of notification the reservation for BC-E category was not made applicable. The said reservation was introduced vide G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 21.09.2007, by which date the selections were already finalized. In the absence of any reservation for BC-E category, the petitioner was considered under Open Category. He secured 32 marks, whereas the last candidate called for interview secured 42 marks. Hence, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the material on record, particularly G.O.Ms.No.30, B.C. Welfare (C-2) Department, dated 21.09.2007 whereunder the roster points were refixed while directing to include the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of Muslims under a separate category ‘E’, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Since the roster point for category-E claimed by the petitioner was fixed only on 21.09.2007, the respondents cannot be found fault with in considering his candidature under open category. So far as the allegation of the petitioner in paragraph-11 (a) of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that one P. Simon who secured lesser marks in the written test was given appointment is concerned, it is explained in the counter-affidavit that he comes under BC-C category and out of the two candidates who applied under BC-C category one Aseervadam who secured more marks was disqualified due to over age and consequently the next candidate P. Simon was selected. The said procedure followed by the respondents being in accordance with law cannot be found fault with. No other ground could be made out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI, J. Dt. 23.12.2009 gbs