Purohit Ramesh, v. High Court Of Andhra Pradesh,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.BALAYOGI Writ Petition No.36891 of 2012 Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) The petitioner who was unsuccessful in the selection to the post of Attenders, in the District Unit of Nizamabad, has come up with the above writ petition praying for two sets of reliefs, namely, (a) to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not disclosing the marks of selected candidates as illegal and (b) to set aside the entire selection process.

2. Heard Mr. C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. It appears from the Notification dated 25-02-2010 that 50 posts of Attenders were notified, out of which 15 were available for Open Category candidates. The petitioner belongs to the Open Category. The Notification prescribed a pass in the 7th standard as the minimum educational qualification, with a rider that preference will be given to candidates who possessed professional skills in driving, carpentry, electrical works, cooking, painting and plumbing.

4. After the completion of the process of selection, it was found that the petitioner was not selected. When he applied under the Right to Information Act for declaring the marks, he was not favoured with a reply. Therefore, he came up with the above writ petition.

5. Along with a counter, the Registry has enclosed necessary documents containing the Notification for Recruitment, the select list along with the marks awarded to all the candidates. Therefore, the first prayer of the petitioner now stands satisfied.

6. But insofar as the second prayer of the petitioner is concerned, it should be pointed out that none of the selected candidates is made a party to the writ petition. Though it is contended by Mr. C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, that all candidates were kept in the dark even about the information regarding the selected candidates, it is seen that the counter affidavit was filed by the Registry in June, 2014 along with necessary enclosures revealing the names and addresses of selected candidates. Even then, the selected candidates were not impleaded. Therefore, the second relief sought for by the petitioner cannot even be considered, as the grant of such a relief would result in the termination of the services of those selected candidates. Therefore, we have no alternative except to dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs. __________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

_______________ N.BALAYOGI, J.

12th July, 2017.

Ak

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.BALAYOGI Writ Petition No.36891 of 2012 (per VRS, J.) 12th July, 2017.

(Ak)