Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By ... vs Banavath Lakshmana Rao, S/O. Saidulu on 26 August, 2021
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
REVIEW W.P. M.P. No.55384 OF 2015
(I.A. No.2 OF 2015)
IN
WRIT PETITION No.3726 OF 2013
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)
1. State seeks to review the order, dated 16.07.2014, passed by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.3726 of 2013, wherein this Court dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the State, against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No.6843 of 2012, dated 10.10.2012, whereby the impugned proceedings vide Memo in C.No.25/A/2008, dated 29.05.2012, issued by the 4th petitioner herein cancelling the provisional selection of the respondent-applicant, was set-aside and the petitioners herein were directed to appoint the respondent-applicant as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee, Reserve Sub-Inspector (AR) (Men) (for short, 'SCT RSI (AR) (Men)', after sending him for necessary training under S.T. category.
2. From the materials on record it appears that the respondent- applicant had applied for the post of SCT RSI (AR) (Men) pursuant to the proceedings issued by the 3rd petitioner herein on 18.02.2012. He was successful in the written as well as physical test and his name was published in the select list. He was sent for medical examination also. Subsequently, by the impugned proceedings dated 29.05.2012 his provisional selection was cancelled as he had been convicted for commission of offence under Section 290 of IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs.100/-. The Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex 2 Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another1 allowed the said O.A. preferred by the respondent-applicant holding that the aforesaid offence was a minor one, which did not involve moral turpitude, and hence it was incorrect on the part of the 4th petitioner to cancel the provisional selection of the respondent-applicant. The said order of the Tribunal was assailed on behalf of the petitioners-State, wherein this Court by order, dated 16.07.2014, upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the Writ Petition.
3. The instant review petition has been preferred against the aforesaid order.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the petitioners-State, submit that this Court did not take into consideration the fact that the respondent-applicant was earlier involved in a Criminal case being Crime No.83 of 2006 of Gampalagudem Police Station, Krishna District, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448 and 427 R/w.149 of IPC, which had ended in compromise before the Lok-Adalath Court (AJFCM), Thiruvuru, on 28.08.2010 vide C.C. No.82 of 2007. As the acquittal was not an honourable one and the offences involved were grave in nature, the order passed by this Court requires to be reviewed in the interest of Justice.
5. On the other hand, Mr.M.R.Tagore, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant, submits that his provisional selection was not cancelled on the aforesaid ground and the fact that earlier criminal case had ended in compromise much before the selection process had commenced were in the knowledge of the Tribunal as well as this Court when the impugned order came to be passed.
1 AIR 1996 SC 3000 3
6. We have considered the materials on record.
7. It cannot be said the fact that the petitioner was involved in an earlier criminal case which has compounded before the Lok-Adalath was not in the knowledge of this Court or the Tribunal at the time when the order came to be passed. Moreover, such fact is not the foundation of the order for cancellation of the provisional selection of the respondent- applicant. At this stage, a new ground to justify the cancellation under the garb of a review cannot be permitted. Furthermore, the offences involved in the earlier criminal case were compoundable in nature and had been compromised by and between the parties much before the selection process had been initiated.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion no case to review the impugned order, dated 16.07.2014, is made out. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this Review Petition, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J ________________________ D.RAMESH, J Date: 26-08-2021 Dsh