IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:31183 of 1997 Between: Bhukya Balu S/o. Narsing R/o. Chintha Vaddera Thanda Village, Gudur Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Project Officer, Intigrated Tribal Development Agency, Eturunagaram Village, Earangal District. 2 Boda Mangilal S/o. Boda Valiya R/o. Hoda Chandru Thanda, Guduru Mandal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1:AGP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in selecting and appointing respondent No.2 as Single Teacher in Girijana Vidya Vikasa Kendram (GVVK) of Chintha Vaddera Thanda Village, Gudur Mandal, Warangal District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the conditions prescribed in the notification. The petitioner and respondent No.2 belong to Scheduled Tribe community. The petitioner is a resident of Chintha Vaddera Thanda Village. In pursuance of notification No.RP.No.E2/B/898/95, dated 12.09.1997 issued by respondent No.1 inviting applications for appointment of Single Teacher in GVVK, the petitioner and respondent No.2 applied. Respondent No.2 was appointed as the Single Teacher. The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the said appointment. At the hearing, Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 has violated condition No.2 of the notification, which reads as under: “The candidate must be resident of a village/thanda/hamlet where the school is located. When there are no candidates from the village where the school is located, the candidates residing within 2kms of radius also are eligible for making applications. When there is a local candidate residing in the village, where the school is located is available, the applications from the candidates residing within 2kms radius from the village where is the school is located shall be rejected.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner is the resident of Chintha Vaddera Thanda Village, respondent No.2 is not the resident of that Village, but resides within a radius of one kilometer and, therefore, as the petitioner who is qualified in all respects is available, respondent No.1 ought not to have considered respondent No.2 for appointment. Though notice was served on respondent No.2, no one is appearing for him. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare submitted that respondent No.2 is a resident of Boda Chandru Thanda, which is within a radius of one kilometer of Chintha Vaddera Thanda Village, where GVVK was located and, therefore, he was also eligible. In my considered view, this writ petition need not be decided on merits for the simple reason that the petitioner, who evidently knew that respondent No.2 was not the resident of Chintha Vaddera Thanda Village, appeared for interview and failed to get selected. Thus, having taken his chance, he cannot now turn round and question the selection process by application of doctrine of waiver and acquiescence. (See Suneeta Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and others[1] and Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others v. Shakuntala Shukla and others [2]) In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed, without going into the merits of the case. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.36558 of 1997 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th DECEMBER, 2008. kvni [1] (2000) 2 SCC 615 [2] (2002) 6 SCC 127