HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ petition No.18570 of 2007 Dated: January 17, 2008 Between: Rapaka Mahesh, S/o. late Pethru, unemployee, Scheduled Caste, Hindu, Male, aged about 21 years, Sidhantam Post, Penugonda Mandal, Near High School, West Godavari District. … Petitioner And Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police (CCD) Group Centre (CRPF), Chandraingutta, Hyderabad – 500 005, and another. … Respondents Order: This writ petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to appear for written test/interview for selection to the post of Peon as arbitrary and illegal. The grievance of the petitioner is that while making selections to the aforesaid post, first respondent has confined candidature only to the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange. The case of the petitioner is that requisition of names from the employment exchange is only one of the known methods for selection of candidates and there is no bar for considering the candidates who apply directly. In support of his case, petitioner relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Central Superintendent, Malkapatnam Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao[1]. This court, while admitting the writ petition, by order dated 31-08-2007, in WPMP No.23823 of 2007, directed the first respondent to permit the petitioner to appear for written test and interview and to consider his claim in accordance with law. Sri Bathula Raj Kiran, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that pursuant to the directions of this court, petitioner was allowed to appear for interview and his candidature was also considered along with other candidates and hence no further orders are necessary in this case. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as per the terms and conditions if he has been selected to the post of Peon or any other post pursuant to the interim directions of this court. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. January 17, 2008 MRR [1] 1996 (6) SCALE 676