IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26538 of 1999 Between: M.Prabhakar S/o.M.Venkat Reddy, R/o.No.2-207 Kondamitta Street, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Transmission Corporation Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Managing Director Vidyuth Saudha, Hyderabad. 2 Chief Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation(Nellore Zone) Vidyuth Bhavan,(Nellore Zone), Nellore. 3 Superintending Engineer, A.P.Transco (operations)Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4 Y.Hari Kumar, A.P.Transco(Operations), Tirupathi, Chottoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, direction or order preferably in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in publishing the list of candidates selected to the post of sub Engineer (Electrical - Trainees) Under direct recruitment during the interview held on 8-12-1999 put up in the notice board on 17-12-1999 in the place of original list published on 16-12-1999 which was pasted in the notice board and removed by the 2nd respondent later as illegal and void and being violative of Arts.14,16 and 21 of the constitution and also being violative of principles of promissory estoppel and further declare the said list published on 17-12-1999 deleting the name of the petitioner which originally was put up as item No.12 on 16-12-1999 is violative of Rule 22 of A.P.State Subordinate Service Rules and forbid the respondents from proceeding further in any manner in pursuance of the said list published on 17-12-1999 and pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.DORAI RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26538 of 1999 ORDER: No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the material available on record. The petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not selecting the petitioner to the post of Sub-Engineer pursuant to the interview held on 8.12.1999 as illegal and arbitrary. The respondent-officials notified certain vacancies to fill up the posts of Sub-Engineers in the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner is one of the candidates who appeared for written examination held on 24.10.1999 and further interview held on 8.12.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that he faired well in the interview and selection list was displayed on 16.12.1999 showing the names of selected candidates which includes his name, but subsequently, on 17.12.1999 the list was revised by deleting his name. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he faired well and belongs to B.C. (A) category he was deprived of the appointment illegally and arbitrarily. Counter affidavit is filed by the Assistant Secretary (Legal) on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the respondents have notified the vacancies of Sub-Engineers pertaining to various units of the department on 5.1.1999 by showing the vacancies which are reserved for backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes etc. It is stated that the petitioner appeared for written test held on 24.10.1999 and interview on 8.12.1999. While denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that selection list was notified in the notice board of the office of Superintendent Engineer (Operations), Tirupati on 16.12.1999. It is further stated that thereafter, the petitioner approached the office of the respondents to ascertain the selection for the said post and though he was apprised of the factual position, he was not satisfied. In the counter affidavit, it is categorically stated that there was no revised list as alleged by the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that as the petitioner has not come up in the merit list, he was not selected and the 4th respondent, who belongs to B.C. (B) community was selected against the open competition as he secured 12th rank in the merit list, whereas the petitioner, who belongs to B.C. (A) community secured 16th rank in the merit list. Except the ipse dixit of the petitioner in the affidavit that selection list was displayed on 16.12.1999 showing his name and later it was revised on 17.12.1999 deleting his name, there is no other material to substantiate the said allegation. Though counter affidavit is filed denying the allegation of any such revised list, the same is not controverted by way of any reply affidavit. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for not accepting the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. So far as the 4th respondent is concerned, this writ petition is already dismissed for default by order of this Court dated 21.3.2003 and no steps have been taken against the said order. In any event, with regard to the selection of 4th respondent also, it is explained in the counter affidavit that that he was a better meritorious candidate than the petitioner as he secured 12th rank and belongs to B.C. (B) community. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the selections made by the respondents for the post of Sub-Engineer. This writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ------------------------------ R. SUBHASH REDDY. J MARCH 19, 2009 Tsr.