Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chandaka Bala Krishna vs The Union Of India on 12 July, 2022
Author: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
yw
a
we
(SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION) :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA'
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) :
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
(PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
RUT PETITION NO: 20477 OF 2022
Rohvesn:
t
.
Sad
oy
Chandaka Sala Krishna, Sfo.Ch. Remana ee 2 = yeers, Afo,Gushini Village
Nedlimaria Mandal Vizi anagararn District Andhra | Sradesh
Sadhu Bala Krishna, S/o.S Prasad Aged 21 years, Rio Qeor No. 11-2-82
Arudalavalasa, Srikakularn District, Andhra Pradash
Pathivada Naveen, S/o.P Narayanappadu Aged 21 years, Rio Door No8-185
Lingannapet Vilage, Padang abham Mandal Visakhanaingam District, Andhrs
Pradesh
Sarika Govind, Svo.Achanna Aged 24 years, Rio. Door No 2-148 Reva,
Fadmenabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh
os
. Badiya Nani, Svo.Badiya Ramu, Aged 19 ye ears, Mio. Sasana Sirset tchanuram
Vilage and Mandal, Srikakulam Dietricf, AP
. Petitioners
'AND
The Union of India Ministry of Defense Central Secretariat New Delhi.
. The Director General of the Indian Coastguard, Coassiquerd Nead Quaners,
National Stadian Comples, New Dathi
he Principal Director of Recrul ment Ce oasiguand Head Quarters, C-Black,
Sacty - Se Gawtharnbudda Nagar, Noida Utter Pradesh - 3042 308
he Gammander, No.8 Coastguard Offices, Malkanurarn, Visakhapatnar
Visakhapainam District, AF
ooo RESETS ES
WHEREAS the Fetdionars above named through their Advocate Sri Turaga Bal
Surya presented this Petition under Article 2868 of the Constitution of india praying ¢ hat
in the
ciroumetances stated in the affidavif Ned therewith, the Hi igh Court ray
plessed fo issue a writ, order or direction more partiquiarly ane in the nature of writ
mandamus daciaring the action of the Respondents in canceling/rejecting nentioners
candidature io the post of Navic (General Dxay} an fimey arid irrelevant grounds as
nightly Megal, arbitrary exercise of power, violative of Aris. 44 and 1S of the Constitutio
af india. and consequently direct the Respondents to aonapt their candidature and
nrocess further for anpointment fo fe post of Navic (General Duty} on par with the other
FQ ey
candidates ag per the Nofifination G2/s0e2 Saich.
AND WHEREAS the High Court upan perus ing the peliion and affidayil fled
herein ard upon sen the argumenta of Sx Turaga Sai Surya, Advocate for the
Patiioner and of Sri N. Harinath, Asst, Solichor General far Respondent No.1, diractad
issue of notice to the Respondents Nerein fo shaw cause as to why this WRIT
PETITION should not be admitted.
You vii
4. The Union of india, Ministry of Defense, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
=. The Director General of the Indian Coastguard, Coastguard Head Quarters,
a.
4.
National Stadium Complex, New Delhi.
The Principal CHrector of Recrufiment Coastguard Head Quarters, C-Black,
Sector - 62 Gowlhambudda Nagar, Noida Uter Pradesh - 207509
The Conmyrander, No.6 Coasiguant Office, Malkapurarn, Visakhapatnam
Visakhapainan Distr iat, AP
are be and hereby directed' fo show cause either 5 appe 2aring if person or through an
Advooats, as to why in the circumstances set out in the pettion and the aNidavil Med
Sean fcopy enclosed) this WRIT PETITION should not be admitted, on or before
7O.08. 2022, on which date the case stands posted for hearing.
IANO: 1 OF 2022 | oe a
Pattion under Gection 167 GRC prayin ig 8 that in the clroumstances stated in the
affidavit fled In support of the wril pall on, the High Court may be pleased fo direct the
respondents to reserve 4 Navic (General Duty} posts as notified under NotWicafion
92/2022 Batch, pending dispogzal of WP No.20v/y & £2022, on the file of the High Court.
The Court made the following;
CRGER:
Notice before admission.
Sr Harinath N., learned Assistant Solletter General, takes notice for
Respondent No.1.
Rearned counsel for the petitioner is permitted fo take out notices fo
respondent nos.2 te 4 through RPAD and fle proof of service into Registry.
The Writ petition is Med questioning the action of the respondents in
rejecting the candidature of the petitioners to the post of Navic (General Duty) on
flimey grounds as arbitrary and Megal. .
The case of the petitioners is that the 3 respondent issued a Notification
inviting applications fo the post of Navic (General Duty) and other poste; the
qualification for the post of Navic (General Duty) is {G2 pass; the petitioners
applied pursuant to the sak! Notification and appeared for ontine examination in
Stage-1 on 30.03.2022 and an 31.05.2022 and succesded in the said examination
and they were directed fo appear for Staged Le, Physical Finess Test and
verification of documents; ihe petitioners succesded in the Stage-2 Test also:
while so, the petiensrs received a communication, dated 05.07 2022 stating that
their candidature is cancelled! rejected due to deficiency in the documents 8s per .
Para G(b}() of the Notification and Para {4 Note {ix}, Godif), boty), Geax) and
fexvill} of Appencdixn-A of the E-Admit Card. .
Deficiency insofar as the fst petitioner is sorcerned, is in online
application, father's name of the first petitioner is shown as "Chandaka Rarnana"
whereas hia father's name is shown as "Ramana" in O.B.0., Cerificate; insofar as
ane petitioner is concerned, in online "application, fhe name of his father ig
mentioned aa "Sadhu Prasad' whereas his father's name is shown as °"S. Prasad"
in C.B.C., Certificate; insofar as 3° petitioner ig concerned, i online application,
the percentage of marks in Clase-X is shown as 80%, whersas his actual
percentage as per marks memo is 47% and that his father's name is mantioned as
*Pathivada Narayanappadu"' in online application, whereas hie father's name is
shown a8 "Narayanappadu™ in O.8.6., Certificate; the qualification prescribed to
- the post of Navie (jeneral Duty) is intermediate, but not $.S.C. and hence,
showing wrong percentages of marks in S.3.¢., cannot be a reason for rejecting
His candidature; even according to the Notification, mismatch of marks entered in
aniline apolication with reference to the original Marke Meme of Ciaas-X cannat be
a reason for rejection of his candidature for the post of Navie (General Duty);
insofar as 4° petitioner is soncemed, reason is in online application, the
percentage of marks in Class-% je mentioned as 42.8%, whereas his actual
percentage with reference te the Original Marks Mema is $s.75% and that his
father's name in online application is shown as "Sarika Achanna" whereas in
O.BS., Certificate, his father's name is shown as "Achanna"™ and insofar as st?
pothioner is soncemed, the date of issue of Glase-12 Certificate is shawn as
"29.08. 2019" In online application, whereas with reference to the said Certificate,
the date of issue is "44.06.2079°. |
The grounds mentioned in the rejection order are very trivial and prima
facie they are Rimay. Admittenly, there i8 @ dispute with regard to the names of
the fathers of the petitioners and the only objection taken is that their surname is
not mentioned in O.B.C., Certificates, With regard to discrepancy of marks in
Glags-X, it cannot be 3 ground to reject the candidature of the palifionera even
according fo the Notification, With regard ta mismatch date of obtaining the
Claes-12 Certificate, the same cannot he a ground to reject the candidature as
even according to the reflection order, the date of issue of Class-12 Cerificate is
"Y3.08.2019", but the si petitioner has mentioned in online application aa
435,08.204 2", in the same year in which he was issued the said Certificate. The
said discrepancy in the date appears to be 8 mistake In uploading the application,
in view of the facts and circumstances, if there are any vacancies ss an
today, the respondanis are directed fo reserva five (05) posts of Navie (Genera!
Duty}, which were notified through Notification No.Oe/2022, pending further
ordara,
List this matter on 10.08.2022, . a co
. Sd). K, SRINIVASA RAGU
_ ASSHTANT REGISTRAR
| (YRUE COPYiI SECTION OFFICER
Ts,
"4. The Union of inci, Ministry of Defense, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. The Director General of the Indian Coasiguard, Coasiguard Head Quarters,
National Stadium Complex, New Delhi,
3. The Principal Director of Rearnulimeny Ceasiguard Head Quarters, C-Block,
_ Sector -82 Gowtharbudda Nagar, Nokia Utter Pradesh - 207309
4. The Commander, No.8 Goastguard Office, Matkapurarn, Visakhapatnam
Visakhapatnam District, APE te 4 by RPAD- along with a copy of petition and
affidavil -
o. One CO to Sr. Turaga Sai Surya, Advooate POPRUO)
&. One CC to Sr N. Harinath, Asst, Sokciter General (OP UC]
7. On@ spare copy.
8
HIGH COURT
KVL
DATED SANT 2022
ORDER
LIST THIS MATTER ON 10.08.2022 NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION WP. No. gOT?? of 2028 INTERIM DIRECTION