HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO W.A.No.242 of 2011 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Ghulam Mohammed, ACJ) In pursuance of the notification dated 25.06.2010, issued for selection of dealers for Kisan Seva Kendra (Retail Outlets) at various places, the appellant and the first respondent herein applied for the same. The third respondent herein rejected the application of the first respondent vide letter dated 12.10.2010, on the ground of non-furnishing of various details as to whether the applicant, his spouse, unmarried daughters and sons have any dealership with the second respondent company. The appellant was called for the interview and was selected as a Dealer of Kisan Seva Kendra of Devanakonda of Kurnool District. The first respondent made attempts by giving notice to the third respondent and also by filing an affidavit before him, but in vain. Hence, the first respondent filed W.P.No.30181 of 2010 questioning the letter of rejection dated 12.10.2010, and the consequential selection of the appellant. Through order dated 22.03.2011, the learned Judge of this Court allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the said letter and also the selection of the appellant, with a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to consider the matter afresh treating the application of the first respondent as valid. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the rejection was made on 12.10.2010, the first respondent made a request letter on 8.11.2010 to the second respondent and the same was rejected on 19.11.2010, by which time the entire selection process was over and as such, the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition as belated. 4. The ground for rejection of the application of the first respondent was that she did not include the word ‘son/s’ after the words ‘unmarried daughter/s’. The learned Judge by relying upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.3021 of 2009 dated 15.12.2009, which attained finality, held that the defect in the affidavit is too trivial and the same cannot be taken as the basis to reject the application. The learned Judge also held that the first respondent filed the writ petition within one month from the date of interview held in November, 2010 and that the order dated 22.02.2010 passed in W.P.No.3428 of 2010 has no relevance to this case. 5. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge has considered the matter in proper perspective and as such there is no need to interfere with the order impugned. However, mere selection in the interview does not give any right to seek appointment. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, ACJ _________________________ NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO, J Date:28.10.2011 sj