THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28158 of 2010 Dated:28.10.2011 Between: P.Vajra Valu, S/o.Late Venkata Muniswamy Pillai. … Petitio And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28158 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrate Tribunal dated 19.03.2010 rejecting O.A.No.7784 of 2008 presented by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents for his appointment as Village Revenue Officer, a request which was rejected by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 10.05.2008. According to the petitioner, on the death of his father, he worked from November 1982 to 1983-1984 as Village Karanam of Puthoor Village, received salary and is therefore qualified and eligible to be considered for appointment as Village Revenue Officer under the Village Officers Service Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 10.05.2008. In the counter affidavit to the Original Application it was specifically pleaded that the petitioner is not eligible as there was no documentary evidence to show that he had worked as Village Revenue Officer or Village Karanam. The letter of the Tahsildar, Puthoor, dated 26.11.2008, relied on by the petitioner before the Tribunal in support of his claim for having worked as Village Karanam also does not assert that the petitioner worked as Village Karanam. The letter of the Tahsildar is merely to the effect that based on the SF register it is clear that salary for Village Karanam was drawn. The letter specifically mentions that neither the name of the person who worked as Village Karanam nor the person to whom salary was disbursed is recorded in the SF register. The petitioner was employed for some time as Section Writer by the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Puthoor, dated 12.03.1984 which states that consequent on the abolition of the posts of part-time Village Officers the petitioner is appointed as Section Writer for the village of Kuppambaduru. The proceedings of the Tahsildar, Puthoor, dated 12.03.1984 do not constitute probative evidence of the petitioner having worked as a Karanam on part time basis, rendering him eligible to be appointed as Village Revenue Officer under the provisions of the Village Officers Service Rules. Recording the above reasons, the Original Application was dismissed. We discern no infirmity in the application of law or in the analysis of the material on record by the learned Tribunal, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ________________________ (GODA RAGHURAM, J) _________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J) 28.10.2011 vs