A. R. LAKSHMANAN, C. J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. G. Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, the learned standing Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents and Sri P. Rambhoopal Reddy, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. ( 2 ) A notification was issued in Dis. No. 140/1999, dated 7-1-1999 by the District judge, Chittoor calling for applications for recruitment to the posts of Copyist and other categories. As per the said notification two posts of Copyists were notified for general category of which one was for women and other 10 posts for Backward class, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. In the notification the required qualifications are mentioned for the post of copyist with which we are now concerned in the present writ petition. The qualifications prescribed are: intermediate with typewriting (English) lower grade and must know telugu writing. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the said notification the writ petitioner applied for the post of copyist and attended for the written examination on 25-4-1999 and on the same day the result of the written examination was published and as per the list put up on the notice board, the petitioner stood first among the women candidates who appeared for the written test. Later, she received call letter from the District Judge for oral interview scheduled to be held on 19-6-1999 and she attended for oral interview on the said date. According to the petitioner she stood first among the candidates appeared for the post of Copyist in women quota. However, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 29-11-1999 wherein the 3rd respondent had been appointed for the post of Copyist and posted to act as Copyist in the Special mobile Court at Chittoor. The 4th respondent was also appointed and is now working in the Court of the Junior Civil judge, Pileru. Before us only the 3rd respondent is represented by the counsel. The 4th respondent did not choose to appear in spite of service of notice. According to the petitioner as per the circular issued by the high Court in Roc. No. 3475/91-C, dated 13-5-1998 it is mentioned that while appointing Copyist, preference should be given to those candidates who know stenography and that the 3rd respondent does not possess the qualification of stenography and as such preference should have been given to the petitioner. According to the petitioner as per the circular issued by the high Court in Roc. No. 3475/91-C, dated 13-5-1998 it is mentioned that while appointing Copyist, preference should be given to those candidates who know stenography and that the 3rd respondent does not possess the qualification of stenography and as such preference should have been given to the petitioner. It is further submitted that besides stenography the petitioner also possesses qualification in computer foundation course from ICSS informatics Limited and, therefore, the district Judge should have considered the case of the petitioner with reference to her academic and technical qualifications rather than preferring the 3rd and 4th respondents who do not possess the qualification in stenography. It is also averred in the affidavit that there are still vacancies of copyists and, therefore, a direction may be issued to the District Judge to consider the case of the petitioner in one of the existing vacancies. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner is questioning the appointment of 3rd and 4th respondents on the ground that they are less meritorious than the petitioner even according to the merit list prepared by the District Judge. Therefore, the writ petition was filed for a mandamus calling for the records in the impugned proceedings of the District Judge dated 27/29-11-1999 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and further to direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner in the place of the 3rd and 4th respondents as copyists with all consequential benefits including seniority. ( 4 ) A counter-affidavit was filed by the District Judge sworn to by Sri G. Bhavani prasad, After denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is averred in paragraph 4 as follows: i submit that as verified from the records, in the panel submitted by my learned predecessor, the petitioner s name has not found place as she has got only 70. 75 marks in the written and oral tests conducted for the post of copyists in this unit. I submit that the respondent No. 3 has got 72. 17/20 marks and the respondent No. 4 has got 71. 25 marks. 75 marks in the written and oral tests conducted for the post of copyists in this unit. I submit that the respondent No. 3 has got 72. 17/20 marks and the respondent No. 4 has got 71. 25 marks. ( 5 ) ANOTHER separate counter-affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent denying the allegations and in paragraph 4 of the said counter-affidavit it is stated that the 3rd respondent is a Post-graduate and having law degree and B. Ed degree and also having technical qualification of typewriting (Higher Grade) and that the District Judge considered her candidature and selected and appointed her for the post of Copyist. It is also denied that the writ petitioner stood first and the 3rd respondent is not having higher qualification than the petitioner. It is further averred that the District Judge has allotted marks in the oral test and for each and every educational and technical qualification and, therefore, the version of the petiioner that she has got more qualifications than the 3rd respondent is not true. ( 6 ) A reply affidavit was filed by the writ petitioner. In reply to paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit it is stated in paragraph 4 of the reply that the 4th respondent did not possess the qualification of shorthand and thus as per the circular issued by the High court preference should be given to the petitioner. A Division Bench judgment of this court in Writ Petition No. 12850 of 2000, dated 31-8-2000, was relied on in which it is held that according to the circular issued by this Court qualification in stenography is a preferential qualification and the same has to be taken into consideration while selecting the candidates. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Krishna murthy submitted that the District Judge has committed a mistake in not properly evaluating the qualifications possessed by the petitioner and the 4th respondent and thus the selection of the 4th respondent is also liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) WITH reference to the 3rd respondent it is submitted that the petitioner possesses additional qualifications but this aspect has not been considered by the District Judge. ( 7 ) WITH reference to the 3rd respondent it is submitted that the petitioner possesses additional qualifications but this aspect has not been considered by the District Judge. Our attention was also drawn to the circular issued by the High Court dated 13-5-1993 which reads as follows: sub: Public Services - Recruitment -Recruitment to the category of copyists in Subordinate Courts under the control of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad - Certain instructions - Issued. Ref: High Court s circular Re. No. 3475/91-Cl, dated 25-6-1992, 24-2-1993. In continuation of the High Court s circulars above cited, all the District judges and other unit officers are directed that while appointing copyists preference should be given to those candidates who know stenography and every year available and prospective vacancies should be intimated to the Public Service commission for being filled in, in accordance with rules and regulations and such intimation should be sent in advance. They are further informed that while filling up the posts of copyists by giving priority to the candidates knowing stenography as aforesaid, care should be taken to see that reservation quota is maintained. ( 8 ) PLACING strong reliance on the above circular the learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court that the district Judge may at least now be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for being absorbed in the existing vacancy in the cadre of Copyist. ( 9 ) WE shall now consider the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits. A perusal of the counter-affidavit submitted by the District Judge would clearly go to show that in the panel submitted by the District Judge the petitioner s name does not find place as she got only 70. 75 marks. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent has got 72. 17/20 and the 4th respondent has got 72. 25 marks. The learned District Judge in fact has verified the records and on the basis of the records, placed before this court the above submissions in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit. In our view, the District Judge, chittoor has allotted marks for the educational and technical qualifications and for the oral test and therefore the version of the petitioner that she is more qualified than the 3rd and 4th respondents, cannot be true. In fact the panel submitted by the District judge was approved in letter Roc. In our view, the District Judge, chittoor has allotted marks for the educational and technical qualifications and for the oral test and therefore the version of the petitioner that she is more qualified than the 3rd and 4th respondents, cannot be true. In fact the panel submitted by the District judge was approved in letter Roc. No. 525 / 99-RC. dated 15-11-1999 by the High Court and the candidates were issued appointment orders on 27-11-1999. In our view the District Judge has selected the 3rd and 4th respondents according to the guidelines and circular orders issued by this high Court for the post of Copyist and, therefore, there is no violation in any manner. The petitioner was allotted marks for the additional qualification she possessed. However, the petitioner has not secured sufficient marks for selection and, therefore, the District Judge has not selected the petitioner and not included her name in the panel. The records placed before us by the learned counsel appearing for the High court would also show that the then District judge has prepared chart mentioning the marks for possessing academic and technical qualifications. The records show that the petitioner, 3rd respondent and the 4th respondent respectively secured the following marks: Writ Petitioner Intermediate (ordinary) 10 marks Graduation (ordinary) 02 marks Typewriting (lower ordinary) 01 mark Typewriting (higher ordinary) 01 mark Shorthand (lower ordinary) 01 mark Shorthand (higher ordinary) 01 mark Typewriting (skill test) 34/3/4 marks Performance and neatness 04 marks Extra curricular activities 02 marks Viva-voce 14 marks Total marks secured for both 70. 3/4 marks Respondent No. 3 Intermediate (ordinary) 10 marks Graduation (ordinary) 02 marks Post-graduation (II class) 02 marks Typewriting (lower I class) 02 marks Typewriting (higher ordinary) 01 mark Shorthand (lower ordinary) 01 mark Shorthand (higher ordinary) 01 mark Typewriting (skill test) 29. 3/5 marks Performance and neatness 05 marks Extra curricular activities 02 marks Viva Voce 17. 1/4 marks Total marks secured for both 72. 17/20 marks Respondent No. 4 Intermediate (ordinary) 11 marks Graduation (ordinary) 03 marks Post-graduation (II Class) 02 marks Law graduation (II class) 03 marks Typewriting (ordinary) 01 mark Typewriting (higher ordinary) 01 mark Typewriting (skill test) 33. 3/5 marks Performance and neatness 05 marks Extra curricular activities 02 marks Viva Voce 17. 1/4 marks Total marks secured for both 72. 17/20 marks Respondent No. 4 Intermediate (ordinary) 11 marks Graduation (ordinary) 03 marks Post-graduation (II Class) 02 marks Law graduation (II class) 03 marks Typewriting (ordinary) 01 mark Typewriting (higher ordinary) 01 mark Typewriting (skill test) 33. 1/4 marks Performance and nearness 03 marks Extra curricular activities 03 marks Viva Voce 15 marks Total marks secured for both 75 1 /4 marks ( 10 ) A perusal of the above marks would show that the 3rd and 4th respondents are having more qualification than the petitioner and in obedience to the High court s guidelines the District Judge has prepared the merit list and submitted the same to this High Court. The additional qualification of the petitioner was also considered and marks were allotted in the interview. Thus it is seen that the allegations in the reply-affidavit of the petitioner are not supported by any documentary evidence and that the learned District Judge has appointed the meritorious candidates having regard to the circulars and guidelines issued by this High Court. ( 11 ) AT the time of hearing a request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the 3rd and 4th respondents have already been appointed in the year 1999 and are working in the said posts, the claim of the petitioner may at least be considered now for absorbing her in the existing vacancy. The District Judge may consider the request now made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and take appropriate decision. If the petitioner satisfies all the requirements her case for absorbing her in any existing vacancy of copyist may be considered in accordance with the circular and guidelines issued by this High Court. ( 12 ) WITH the above observations the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.