APHC010307962013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21156/2013 Between: G.durga Maheswari, D/o.sri Suryanarayana, ...PETITIONER AND The Chairman Managing Director and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KRISHNA RAO MODHALAVALASA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Nagaraju Naguru,Standing Counsel For APGENCO 2. V SESHA KUMARI 3. The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is challenging the inaction on part of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner to the post of Junior Plant Attendant, despite the petitioner being meritorious under the non-local category. 2. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Plant Attendant in response to the notification dated 05.01.2011 issued by the respondents for filling up 1086 vacancies for the Junior Plant Attendant position. HN, J W.P.No.21156_2013 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied under the non-local category and secured 45.45 marks in the test. However, one Ms. R. Spandana, who secured 42.5 marks, was selected in the provisional list. It is submitted that both the petitioner and the selected candidate belong to the BC-B community and are non-local candidates. It is submitted that the petitioner secured 45.45 marks, which is more than meritorious than the candidate who was selected. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. This Court, vide order dated 22.08.2013, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner based on merit. As the respondents failed to comply with the interim directions passed by this Court, C.C.No.316 of 2014 was filed, which was dismissed on 24.06.2016. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should have been employed in place of Ms. R. Spandana and seeks a direction to that extent. 6. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents submits that the order of this Court has been duly complied with and the same was brought to the notice of this Court. The direction of this HN, J W.P.No.21156_2013 3 Court for the respondents to follow merit was scrupulously followed. It is also submits that the petitioner was not selected in the final list as she secured only 45.45 marks, while the candidate selected under the non-local category had secured higher marks. Furthermore, the cut-off marks for the non-local category were fixed at 46.41 marks. As such, the case of the petitioner was not considered while preparing the final selection list. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also submitted a representation in pursuance of the orders of this Court and a speaking order dated 15.02.2014 was passed by the respondents, informing the petitioner that she was ineligible for the said post. 8. Recording the same, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 21.01.2025 NKA HN, J W.P.No.21156_2013 4 38 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.21156 of 2013 Date: 21.01.2025 NKA