IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 20932 of 2000 Between: K.Udaya Bhaskar ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Employment & Training, Ministry of Labour, Employment & Training, Secretariat, Hyderabad-22 and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Assailing the order dated 12.10.1999 made in O.A. Nos. 8080 and 8191 of 1998 by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the proceedings dated 17.11.1998 issued by the second respondent, appointing the fifth respondent herein as Assistant Training Officer, (Engineering and Drawing) at ITI (Boys), Nellore, and consequently to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to appoint local candidates of Zone III, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner, pursuant to the direction in O.A. No. 4374 of 1997, was interviewed for the post of Assistant Training Officer in O.C. Category in Zone III as a local candidate and stood second in the selection list and, according to him, at first position, a non-local candidate was shown. Therefore, apprehending that the non-local candidate may be selected, he filed O.A. No.8080 of 1998 and since no interim order was passed, as the fifth respondent herein was appointed, he filed OA No. 8191 of 1998. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have been considered in the reserved post in Zone III, as a local candidate instead of appointing the fifth respondent, who is a non-local candidate. It is further contended that the petitioner is in the select list and he is entitled for being appointed. We are unable to accede to this contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Apex Court in its recent judgment in State of Orissa & Another Vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Others ([1]) has observed that a person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment, that the empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The Apex Court in paragraph (15) has further held that select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments and the vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required. This apart, as the Rules permit for the appointment of a non- local candidate and as the fifth respondent secured more marks than the petitioner herein, there cannot be any right for the petitioner to assail her selection. Therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision and for the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada July 19, 2010 MAS [1] JT 2010 (6) SC 33