THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.579 of 2004 ORDER: The 3rd respondent, the institution admitted to grant-in-aid, issued Notification, dated 15-11-2003, proposing to fill the post of lecturer in Commerce reserved in favour of SC-C. The petitioner belongs to that category and he is a post-graduate in Commerce. He contends that he submitted an application on 28-11-2003 personally in the office of the 3rd respondent and states that no acknowledgment was issued. He also states that in addition to handing over the application personally, he sent separate application to respondents 2 and 3 through courier service. It is stated that interviews for the post of lecturer were conducted on 15-12-2003 and though he did not receive any interview card, he attended the College and submits that respondents 2 and 3 refused to permit him. The 4th respondent was selected for the said post. The petitioner challenges his selection on the ground that his case was not considered though he was very much qualified and submitted application within time. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations. It is stated that the petitioner did not submit any application at all nor did he receive any application through courier service. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner claims to have submitted an application for the post of lecturer in response to the notification, dated 15-11-2003 issued by the 3rd respondent. The notification directs that the application can be submitted to the 3rd respondent or to the 2nd respondent. Though the petitioner asserts that he submitted an application personally to the 3rd respondent and sent application through courier to respondents 2 and 3, the record does not substantiate the same. It is no doubt true that the petitioner filed receipt said to have been issued by M/s. Flight Despatch Courier Service. The description of the consignee is not proper. The name of the consignee is mentioned as “Secretary and Correspondent and Regional Joint Director Collegiate Education, Guntur.” It may be noted that the 3rd respondent institution is at Narsaraopet and the 2nd respondent is at Guntur. Further, one and the same person or agency cannot answer both the descriptions. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner was wrongfully denied the opportunity. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 23-09-2010 Prv