THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27310 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in seeking to award weightage marks for the aggregate marks in the qualifying examination during selection process to fill the post of Assistant Engineer in APTRANSCO as arbitrary and illegal; and consequently for a direction to the respondents to conduct the selection process solely based upon the performance in the written test. It appears that in pursuance of a notification published on 1.07.2008 in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper, petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner appeared in the written test conducted for the said post and secured reasonably good marks than others. However, he was not called for oral interview. When petitioner enquired, he came to know that, apart from the marks obtained in the written examination, the respondents have awarded weightage marks for the aggregate marks in the qualifying examination obtained by the candidates. The petitioner was not called for interview since weightage marks allotted to him were not sufficient. According to petitioner, the notification did not contain those details as to awarding of weightage marks for the graduation marks. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents drawn attention of this Court to the footnote of the notification issued on 1.07.2008 wherein it is stated that “it is further informed that the detailed notification regarding eligibility, selection process etc., has been provided separately (Click link Detailed_Notification08)” and as such the details were already furnished, which are available on the website, which reads as under.” “Note: No other experience is considered other than the above mentioned. b) the selection process will be in two levels Level – 1: A list of qualified candidates in the written test will be drawn in the ratio of 1:2 based on the marks obtained in the written test + percentage weightage for Graduation marks + weightage for work experience, in the order of merit in each category. Level – 2: Marks obtained as per pre-para, the qualified candidates will be required to furnish the documentary proof in evidence of the percentage of marks obtained in the Graduation, relevant work experience, community, PH etc.” Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all details were not part and parcel of the notification and denying the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that respondents did not specify the criteria of percentage weightage for graduation marks cannot be countenanced. Every thing was on the website. By downloading the same, one can get the knowledge of all these details. This fact has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, except stating that the same ought to have been published in the newspaper and even otherwise respondents have no jurisdiction to put such a condition. How the selection process should be conducted and what is the criteria of percentage weightage for graduation marks, are to be decided by the respondent. It is not for this Court to examine the same. If there was any doubt, in spite of visiting website, petitioner could have approached the respondents for clarification. For all the above, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ (C. V. RAMULU, J.) 29th June, 2010. Js.