IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.280 of 2001 Between: Pulapa Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner And Central Recruitment Board and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.280 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner for appointment to the post of Deputy Manager (Law) under O.B.C. category, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to consider his candidature to the said post. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the 2nd respondent, State Bank of Hyderabad, he applied for the post of Deputy Manager (Law) under O.B.C. category and he received a call letter dated 28.12.1999 asking him to appear for personal interview on 24.01.2000. Along with the petitioner, about 14 others were also asked to appear for personal interview and whereas, only seven candidates were appeared and thereafter, the petitioner was asked to produce relevant certificates. Further, one J.Venkata Ramana also appeared for the said interview, who was an employee in the Bank of India, Mumbai, and he suppressed the said fact and the petitioner informed about the same to the first respondent, Central Recruitment Board, by way of telegram and consequently the said J.Venkata Ramana was not given the order of appointment and the petitioner became entitled to the appointment, as his name is found in the waiting list immediately next to J.Venkata Ramana. Even in spite of said position, the petitioner was not given the appointment order, hence he approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, while admitting the fact that J.Venkata Ramana was selected to the said post but his selection was cancelled on the ground that he suppressed the fact that he is an employee in some other bank, as on the date of interview. Thereafter, the candidature of the petitioner was taken into consideration and noticed that he also suppressed the fact that he was also working in Railways, as on the date of interview. Therefore, it is decided by the authorities not to issue any appointment order to the petitioner also. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the material on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the information is not available with him as to whether the petitioner was an employee of the Railways, as on the date of interview. He further submitted that the respondents did not file any proof substantiating the averments made in the counter that the petitioner was an employee of the Railways, as on the date of interview and he denied the same. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that though a copy of the counter is served to the counsel for the petitioner, no reply has been filed rebutting the averments of the counter. He further submitted that though no proof is filed, in respect of the employment of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as sought for in the present writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner was interviewed for the post of Deputy Manager (Law) in the second respondent’s bank and no appointment order was issued to him on the ground that he suppressed the fact that he was an employee of the Railways, as on the date of interview. The learned standing counsel specifically pointed out that the petitioner did not disclose in his bio-data about his employment in the Railways. He further pointed out that there were clear instructions that if any employee intends to apply for the said post, the applications shall be routed through their employer, through proper channel, and the applicants need to produce “No Objection Certificate” from their employer at the time to interview. Neither the petitioner routed his application through proper channel nor he submitted “No Objection Certificate” at the time of interview and moreover, he submitted in his bio-data that he is practicing law since 1988, which is found to be false. Denying the averments of the counter, no reply has been filed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, except making averment in respect of the employment of the petitioner in Indian Railways, no proof has been filed and further denying the averments of the counter, no reply has been filed by the petitioner, therefore, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, in the case of the petitioner narrating the reasons for rejecting his candidature, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, for the above reasons, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: March 2nd, 2010 LSK