Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt.K.Sirisha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 July, 2020
Author: T. Rajani
Bench: T. Rajani
SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI
WRIT PETITION No.11794 of 2020
ORDER:
This petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the experience service certificate Ref.No.5129/SRDS/SPM/2016 dated 30-12-2016 and Lr.No.5129/SRDS/SPM/2016 dated 30-12-2016 and job chart file No.PRR05-39021/262/2019-HOD SHG SEC-CORD in the revised Master Merit List addressed by the 3rd respondent for counting of marks of 12 for experience to the post of Horticulture Officer in pursuance of the notification No.Estt.I(1)AP/20/2016 dated 01-09-2016, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has basic qualification of Horticulture and she rendered her services in Engineering Department. But her service is not counted for the purpose of appointment to the post of Horticulture Officer.
4. The Government Pleader on the other hand submits that the petitioner has been working in the Department of Horticulture. Hence, even if she has a Degree in Horticulture, that will not be taken into consideration for appointment based on the experience in some other Department. 2
5. The counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the proceedings, wherein, similar candidates were considered for appointment. They being one Danta Jyotsna Rani, N. Kishore Kumar Yadav and G. Suresh Babu. The counsel for the petitioner however submits that the petitioner had made a representation to the respondents on 26-12-2019. The counsel for the petitioner also submits that a service certificate was issued by the 3rd respondent.
6. But however, the service certificate only shows that the petitioner has a Degree in Horticulture, it does not show that she has experience in the Department of Horticulture.
7. The Government Pleader submits to the Court that if the petitioner makes a representation putting forth all the above facts, the same would be considered.
8. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had already made a representation to the respondents on 26-12-2019.
9. Hence, in view of the above, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26-12-2019 keeping in view the fact that the candidates, who are similarly placed as that of the petitioner were already considered for the appointment as Horticulture Officer. Till such time, one post shall be kept vacant for the petitioner.
3
10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________ T. RAJANI, J July 22, 2020.
ARR 4 SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI WRIT PETITION No.11794 of 2020 Date : 22-07-2020 ARR