Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N. Pavan Kumar Reddy. vs Andhra Pradesh Public Service ... on 18 October, 2024
1
APHC010243162020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 15994/2020 & 18719/2020
WP No.15994/2020
Between:
N. Pavan Kumar Reddy. ...PETITIONER
AND
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. C SRINIVASA BABA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ADDANKI RAMACHANDRA MURTHY N (SC FOR APPSC)
2. V.VENKATA NAGA RAJU (STANDING COUNSEL FOR APPSC) IN
HIGH COURT OF A.P
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
Originally the WP No.15994 of 2020 was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
"..... to issue an appropriate order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by setting aside the impugned Office Memo issued by 2 Respondent No.I in R.No.302 dated 23.06.2020, as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, violative of Articles 4A,14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of Rule 22 A and B of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules,violative of principles of natural justice and pass..."
Later it was modified vide order dated 11.09.2024, reads as under:
".......declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the written objections submitted on 8.6.2020 relating Pater 1 Question ID No.469750552 and Paper 2 Question ID No.469750995, as illegal and arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and direct the respondents to consider the same by referring to issue a separate subject expert and consequently add marks to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders....."
2. WP No.18719 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
"......to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the Respondents particularly respondent No.1 in not considering the petitioner's objection in respect of question ID No.469750552, ID No.469750986 and ID No.4697501031 as the same are incomplete or incomprehensive while publishing the final key for the main examinations conducted in pursuance of notification No.20/2018, dated 10.12.2018 for the post of Divisional Accounts Officer Works, Grade-II in A.P. Works Accounts Service even though it mandates as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, unjust, irrational, irregular and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the st Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1 respondent to ignore question ID No.469750552, ID No.469750986 and ID No.4697501031 or give one mark for each question to the petitioner and evaluate the papers in the main examinations conducted in pursuance of notification No.20/2018, dated 10.12.2018 and if necessary to refer to subject expert and pass..."
3. As the issue involved in these two Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent-Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission issued a Notification No.20/2018 dated 10.12.2018 for the post of Divisional Accounts Officer (Works) Grade-II in A.P. Works Accounts Service (General Recruitment). In pursuance of the same, the petitioners have applied for the same. A preliminary exam was held on 3 07.07.2019 to filter the eligible candidates. Basing on performance of the petitioners, they were selected for Mains, and the respondents have conducted Mains exams on 19.3.2020 and 20.03.2020 and the petitioners were appeared for the same. Further, the respondents have published initial key on 21.03.2020 and also calling for objections from the candidates. The petitioners have objected regarding the question paper and pointed out as many as 15 defects on 24.03.2020. Thereafter, the respondents have issued revised Key on 04.06.2020 by changing Key for 6 questions and deleting 9 questions. It is further stated that even in the Revised Key also, when the petitioners tried to submit their objections to the Question ID No.469750995 and Question ID No.469750552, without considering the objections, final Key was issued on 14.08.2020. After declaring the results, the petitioners were called for certificate verification through the letter dated 14.08.2020 issued by the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the petitioners attended before the 1st respondent for verification of certificates. Later, selection list was published through the communication dated 30.09.2020. But, the petitioners numbers were not there due to non-consideration of the above two questions. Even though the petitioners have approached the authorities by raising the objections as long back as on 08.06.2020, without considering the same, the final key was released on 18.08.2020. Questioning the same, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners.
4
5. This Court vide order dated 12.10.2020 in W.P.No.15994 of 2020 has granted interim direction that if any appointment be made shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition and its result.
6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 in WP No.15994 of 2020. While denying all the allegations made in the petition inter alia contended that,as contended by the petitioner that, he will get 2.66 marks more and get the selection, if the Commission considers the two objections. In this connection, it is submitted that, there is no truth in this allegation. The said objections i.e., questions 1. I.D. No.469750552 (P-1)
2. I.D. No.469750995(P-II) along with the other objections were sent for the examination to the subject expert. As per subject expert report, there is no change in the initial key and hence no objections were invited on these two questions once again (Revised key) as per the Commission's procedure. The Petitioner lost the selection due to lack of merit only. As the objections raised by the Petitioner have been evaluated by the subject experts and the revised key was hosted on the Commission's web site on 04-06-2020 and the final key was released after Commission's approval on 14-08-2020.It is further stated that, if the Commission deletes or revised some answers, it does not mean that all of them are defective. It only means that the expert has revised his earlier opinion on the question. Further, it is to inform that the perception of the question varies from candidate to candidate, if there is validity in the contentions, the subject expert revises the option. There is no ignorance shown in this regard. It is further stated that, all the process was done as per 5 procedure. The petitioner is unnecessarily blaming the Commission which is not acceptable under above stated facts and circumstances. The Commission have examined all the objections and placed them to the subject experts carefully. The A.P.P.S.C. is pioneer in introducing transparent procedure for receiving and resolving objections on key for the utmost benefit of the unemployed candidates and no injustice is done to the Petitioner.
7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent in WP No.18719 of 2020. While reiterating the contents in the counter affidavit in WP No.15994 of 2020, contended that this writ petition has become infructuous for the simple reason that by the time of filing this writ petition, all the recruitment process was over from the part of the Commission side and unit list was also sent to the Government on 09.10.2020 for giving the appointments to the selected candidates. Therefore nothing remains in the hands of the Commission, it is for the Government to look after the issue. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits.
8. Heard Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned Senior counsel and Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.Venkata Naga Raju, learned Standing Counsel for APPSC appearing for the respondents.
9. On hearing, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, while reiterating the averments made in the petitions, contended that, though the question papers are drafted by subject experts, it does not give right to 6 anyone to ignore the valid contentions raised, including the text books published by Government of Andhra Pradesh. The text book published by Government of Andhra Pradesh cannot be defective. He further submits that, it is a clear case of non-application of mind and arbitrary exercise of power on thepart of the authorities. In the instant case, the petitioners have approached the authorities by raising the objections as long back as 08.06.2020, but without considering them, final key was released on 14.08.2020 by APPSC. In all fairness, the APPSC ought to have referred the objections of the petitioners to another subject expert to arrive at an unbiased and fair assessment. Obviously the APPSC has not referred the matter to another subject expert causing great prejudice and denial of getting an employment to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner belongs to OC category, unless the valid objections raised by the petitioner considered in a proper true spirit by the respondents, she will be put to irreparable loss and denial of her legitimate claim. Therefore, learned counsel requests this court to pass appropriate orders.
10. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for APPSC appearing for the respondents while denying the contentions made by the petitioner, reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavits. He submits that, law is well settled on these issues regarding interference with key answers provided by expert Committee scope of judicial Review/Interference under Art.226 of the Constitution. The same was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme 7 Court in a case reported in UPPSC Vs. Rahul Singh and others 1 and another issue with regard to after completion of the selection process and appointment have been made, no relief can be granted by the Court and also Recruitment in excess of notified vacancies impermissible, it amounts to filling up of future vacancies. It was also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State of Orissa and another Vs. RajkishoreAnanda and others 2. The ratio lay down in these judgments squarely applicable to this case.
11. Learned Standing Counsel mainly contended that if the State has committed an error in preparing the merit list containing the names of the candidates double the number of vacancies determined, that would not mean that the select list has become immortal and all those persons whose names appeared in the list would be offered appointment even after the expiry of the life of selection list. Therefore, requested to dismiss the writ petitions as devoid of merits.
12. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the 1strespondent APPSC has issued a notification No.20 of 2018 for filling up the post of Divisional Accounts Officer (Works) Grade II. The scheme of Examination for selection is TWO tier i.e., (1) Screening Test (2) Mains Examination. The petitioner belongs to OC category and has applied for the post and attended the preliminary examination with Hall ticket no.201101903 1 2018 (7) SCC 254 2 2010 (6) SCC 777 8 and the results for the preliminary examination were declared on 26.09.2019. Later, the petitioner was selected for the Mains examination and attended the same with Hall Ticket No.201101903 which were conducted on 19.03.2020 and 20.03.2020. The petitioner secured 353.93 marks in the Mains Examination. It is further observed that, the Key for the Mains examination was released and called for objections thereunder on 21.03.2020. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted objections on the Key in between 26.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 with regard to three (03) questions i.e., Question IDs No.469750552, 469750986 and 4697501031. Final Key of Mains Examination was hosted on 14.08.2020 and a list of candidates provisionally admitted for certification verification was published, of which, the petitioner is one among the candidates. Accordingly the petitioner was attended the certificate verification on 03.09.2020. The last selected women candidate in OC category has secured 354.82 marks with Hall ticket No.201200843 and penultimate OC candidate (Women) who was selected has secured 355.08 marks with Hall ticket No.201201888. However, the petitioner in WP No.18719 of 2020 has lost selection in a margin of 0.89 marks and 1.25 marks. The petitioner in WP No.15994 of 2020 has scored 2.66 marks and has given negative marks of 0.66 marks for two wrong answers.
13. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta 3 , wherein the Hon'bl Apex Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre-Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter 3 (1983) 4 SCC 309 9 himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that three of the key answers were wrong. The following observations of the Court are pertinent:
"16.... We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct."
14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and by following the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University's case , this Court is inclined to allow the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to give one mark for each question to the petitioners and to evaluate the papers in the main examinations conducted in pursuance of notification No.20/2018 dated 10.12.2018.
15. Insofar as WP No.15994 of 2020 is concerned, this Court has already directed the respondents if any appointment will be made that should be subject to result of the writ petition. In view of the same, this Court is inclined allow the WP No.15994 of 2020 and directed the respondents concerned to appoint the petitioner as SCTSI (Civil) pursuant to the Notification No.20/2018 in December 2018 in terms of his merit at roster point under OC category basing on the merit, by giving benefit of notional seniority from the date when the less meritorious candidate to the petitioner was 10 appointed. In case, no vacancy is available in the cadre, the respondents are directed to create one supernumerary post. However, the petitioner is not entitled to claim monetary benefit, as he was not appointed to the post on the principle of 'NO WORK - NO PAY".
16. Insofar as WPNo.18719 of 2020 is concerned, while declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the objections raised by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary, directing the 1st respondent to give one mark for each question to the petitioner and evaluate the papers in the main examinations conducted in pursuance of Notification No.20/2018 dated 10.12.2018.
17. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 18-10-2024
Gvl
11
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 15994/2020 & 18719/2020
Date : 18 .10.2024
Gvl