IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7706 of 2008 Between: Dr. K. Surya Kumar, S/o. Late K.S. Raju, R/o. Plot No. 19-12-411, Bairagipattida, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2 The Educational Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notification ROC No. PR4/15567/Advt. 208/2007, dt. 2-9-2007 issued by the respondent for not advertising the communal rotation indicating to the post to which category it falls and not carry forward the unfilled post belonging to BC "A" category in the year 1987 vide ROC No. 2808/PR4 Adv 17/87, dt. 6-8-87, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO The Court made the following : O R D E R: The 1st respondent issued a notification, dated 2.9.2007, inviting applications for 22 posts of Lecturers, in Sri Venkateshwara Ayurvedic College. Category of reservation, in respect of those 22 posts, is also mentioned. The petitioner is a Post Graduate in Ayurvedic Medicine and belongs to B.C-A category. His grievance is that none of the 22 posts are earmarked for B.C-A, and thereby he lost an opportunity of submitting application. He contends that the previous selections have taken place in the year 1987, and though one post was earmarked for B.C-A in the category of Assistant Professors, the same was not filled up, and the 1st respondent ought to have carried it forward, to be filed up in the present selection. Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 1st respondent did not follow the roster points, stipulated under Rule 22 of the A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, and had proper allocation been made, a post reserved for B.C-A category would have been notified. Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that the reservation as mentioned in the roster points, is strictly maintained, and at any rate, there is no concept of carry forward, in respect of vacancies earmarked for backward class candidates. Even according to the petitioner, 22 posts, which are proposed to be filed up, occur in the roster points, between 30 and 54. A verification of the roster points between 30 and 54, discloses that no post is earmarked for B.C-A. The next place, at which the reservation is provided for B.C-A, is after 54. Even assuming that a vacancy notified in the year 1987 and earmarked for B.C-A was not filled up, the rules do not provide for carrying forward the said vacancy. Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 10th April 2008 PAN