IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15375 of 1999 Between: D. Nageswar Rao, S/o Dasru, R/o. High Court Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly, Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Building, Public Gardens, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or orders or directions particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to produce the records pertaining to selection for the Post of Chowkidar in pursuance of Notification issued in Enadu Telugu daily on 26-3-99 and declare the action of the respondents for selecting the persons for the post of Chowkidar, who got less marks than the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, mala fide, discriminative in nature and on extraneous and political consideration and consequently directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner for the post of Chowkidar who has got more marks than the persons with all consequential and monetary and service benefits in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M.V. RAJA RAAM Counsel for Respondents: GP, HOME The Court made the following: Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner who had applied for the post of Chowkidar, in the A.P. State Legislative Assembly, which was reserved for S.T. community, questions the selections made by the respondents to the said post. 2. The respondents issued notification dated 26-03-1999 in the print media inviting applications to fill up four posts of Attenders and two posts each of Chowkidars and Sweepers. As per the said notification, the persons who intend to apply for the said posts should give complete bio-data, mentioning the educational qualifications and enclose caste certificate, marks memo, proof of age etc., thereto. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner has offered his candidature, by submitting the necessary documents and the respondents have received his application and registered it at Sl.No.420 in the inward register. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he secured more marks than that of respondents 3 and 4, his case was not considered whereas respondents 3 and 4 were selected. 3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 admitting that petitioner’s application was registered at Sl.No.420. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that though the petitioner had enclosed copies of transfer certificate, caste certificate and income certificate, he failed to enclose copy of memorandum of marks. It is further stated that pursuant to the notification, about 658 applications were received by 5.00 p.m., on the last date for receipt of applications, i.e. 28-06- 1999, and on scrutiny of the said applications, the candidates who secured highest marks in V class were selected for the post of Chowkidar. It is also stated that among the applicants who have enclosed relevant certificates, the candidates who secured 311 and 310 marks in class V were selected and appointed to the post of Chowkidar. 4. The precise case of the respondents, as stated in the counter affidavit, is that as the petitioner did not enclose copy of memorandum of marks of class V along with his application, his case was not considered. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he had, in fact, enclosed a copy of such memorandum of marks, but, however, there is no proof of enclosing the same along with the application. No reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner rebutting the averment of the respondents in the counter affidavit that a copy of the memorandum of marks is not enclosed along with the application, in the absence of which there is no reason to disbelieve the said averment made in the counter affidavit. It is to be noted that the respondents have stated in the counter affidavit that names of the selected candidates for the post in question are displayed in the notice board. However, at the time of filing the writ petition, petitioner had not made the said candidates as party respondents. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the selection process adopted by the respondents in filling up the posts in question. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. August 13, 2008 MRR