IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 6092 of 2008 Between: Kundarapu Bharathi, D/o. Yadagiri, R/o. H.No. 6-3-121, Nalgonda (Urban), Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PET IT IONER AND 1 The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Region-III, Hyderabad Zne, Near Clock Tower, Nalgonda./ 2 The Employment Officer, District Employement Exchange, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. .....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 of Mandamus or any other appropraite writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents as being arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice While directing the 1st Respondent to permit the petitioner for Interview to the post of SAFAIKARMACHARI-CUM-WATER BOY-CUM-LUNCH ROOM ATTENDANT at Huzur Nagar Branch of 1st Respondent's Department scheduled to be held on 25- 03-2008 or any other date without insisting that petitioner name should be sponsored by the Concerned Employment Exchange and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6092 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus directing the ﬁrst respondent to permit the petitioner for interview to the post of Safai Karamchari-cum-Water Boy- cum-Lunch Room Attendant. This Court, on 24.3.2008 while ordering notice before admission, directed the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for the post of Safai Karamchari-cum-Water Boy- Lunch Room Attendant without insisting on sponsoring by the Employment Exchange. Now the learned counsel for petitioner states that the respondents have considered the case of petitioner and no further orders are required in the writ petition. In view of the same, treating the interim orders dated 24.3.2008 as ﬁnal orders in the writ petition, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 2.9.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6092 of 2008 2.9.2008