THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21248 OF 2000 Dated: 25.11.2010 Between : T. Bhupal …. Petitioner And 1. The Director, National Remote Sensing Agency, Balanagar, Hyderabad, and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21248 OF 2000 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the petitioner’s case for appointment to the post of Draughtsman in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.749 of 1997, dated 16.7.1997 is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner was appointed as Draughtsman in the National Remote Sensing Agency on temporary basis on 16.4.1992. He filed W.P.No.7573 of 1996 aggrieved by the termination of his service. The said writ petition was dismissed on 23.7.1996 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred W.A.No.749 of 1997. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 16.7.1997 dismissed the said Writ Appeal, however it was observed that the petitioner can apply in the event of any vacancy in future and the respondents shall consider the same taking into consideration his experience and that he should not be denied consideration only because he had become age barred. The present writ petition has been filed contending that though two vacancies arose thereafter, the respondents failed to consider the petitioner’s candidature. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that the petitioner was engaged purely on temporary basis for the work which was purely temporary and for specified durations depending on functional needs. It is further stated that no post of Draughtsman-A had fallen vacant after the disposal of W.A.No.749 of 1997. So far as the two posts referred to by the petitioner which fell vacant on the resignation of Sri V. Purnachandra Rao, Draughtsman-B and Sri K.V.S.N. Raju, Draughtsman-B are concerned, it is stated that the respondents had not initiated any recruitment action in view of the ban orders issued by the Government of India. Even otherwise no post of Draughtsman-A fall vacant and therefore the question of considering the petitioner’s candidature for appointment does not arise. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit, I do not find any justifiable reason to grant Mandamus as prayed for. As noticed above, W.P.No.7573 of 1996 was dismissed and even W.A.No.749 of 1997 was dismissed subject to the observation that in case of any future vacancy, the petitioner’s case may be considered. The specific case of the respondents that no vacancy arose to the post of Draughtsman-A could not be contradicted by the petitioner. Hence the Writ Petition, which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 25.11.2010 gbs