THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.301 of 2005 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is directed against the order of dismissal dated 03.12.2004, passed by the learned Judge of this Court in W.P.No.6031 of 1999. 2. The brief facts are that in pursuance of Notification dated 10.08.1996 issued for filling the six vacancies for the post of Manager in the first respondent- Bank, the appellant applied for the same. Thereafter, though she was subjected to selection process, the selection committee denied her candidature and selected the second respondent, who had not acquired requisite qualifications. Hence, she filed W.P.No.6031 of 1999 seeking a mandamus to declare the selection of second respondent to the post of Manager of District Cooperative Central Bank, Srikakulam, as illegal and arbitrary with a consequential direction to declare that the appellant is entitled to the said post. By the order impugned, the learned Judge dismissed the said writ petition. Hence, the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the appellant is a Graduate in Management, she was not granted 5 marks allotted exclusively for Banking Management and computer subjects as per Clause 3(c) of the Notification by the impleaded respondents and the learned Judge ought to have considered the same. He further contended that the learned Judge ought to have seen that there was a clarification dated 22.8.1996, issued by the first respondent Bank that preference will be given to those who acquired qualification of Commerce/Banking law and Management either in Graduation or Post Graduation and the impleaded respondents have not considered the case of the appellant, who acquired Graduation in Commerce with Banking, by considering the case of the second respondent, who is a Graduate in Science. He also contended that by the date of notification, the second respondent did not acquire any qualification in Computers and the computer certificate produced by her is a forged one. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that out of 300 marks, the appellant obtained 157 total marks, whereas the second respondent obtained 159 marks and as such, the proposed respondents selected the second respondent as per the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Cooperation, Andhra Pradesh and there is no need to interfere with the order impugned. 6. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Computer Certificate produced by the second respondent is not genuine is concerned, the second respondent in her counter has stated that she took training in PGDCA Course during 1993-96 and successfully completed the same by securing 68% marks and she filed a letter of clarification dated 13.03.2003 from the Principal of the Computer Institution with regard to issuance of certificate in April instead of March and as such, by the time of notification, she completed the computer course. 7. It is evident from the record that the appellant obtained 132 and 25 marks in the written and oral tests respectively, in total, 157 out of 300 marks prescribed for the post of Manager in first respondent-Bank, whereas second respondent obtained 120, 34 and 5 marks for written, oral and P.G.Diploma in Computers respectively, in total, 159. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is categorically stated that the interviews were conducted as per the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Cooperation, Andhra Pradesh, in Circular Memo dated 05.10.1994 and the same were scrupulously followed by the selection committee, which consists of five members and it awards marks independently to each of the candidates interviewed. The marks allotted by each member of the committee to each candidate would be finally consolidated and total marks secured by each of the candidates includes the marks secured in the written test, in the interview and for the additional qualifications. 8. From the above, it is clear that the appellant obtained less marks than the second respondent, who was selected. In view of the same and in view of the averments mentioned in the counter- affidavits filed by the first and second respondents, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:11.10.2011 sj