Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N. Venkata Ramudu S/O N. Thimmappa vs The Director Of Collegiate Education, on 11 October, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VUTUKURU SRINIVAS
WRIT PETITION No. 9097 OF 2005
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai) Heard Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Bheemarao, learned Government Pleader for Services-III, for the respondents apart from perusing the material available on record.
2. Applicant in O.A.No.593 of 2004 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called as the 'Tribunal') is the petitioner in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Petitioner herein, by invoking the provision of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, filed the aforesaid original application, questioning the action of the respondent authorities in issuing appointment to the 4th respondent as Attender and for further declaration that the 4th respondent is not eligible to be appointed against the said post of Attender 2 and for consequential direction to the authorities to appoint the applicant/petitioner herein as attender/sweeper.
4. The Tribunal, vide the questioned order dated 30.03.2005, dismissed the original application, principally on the ground that the appointment of the 4th respondent was not cancelled either by the appointing authority or by any court of law.
5. As mentioned supra, the Tribunal dismissed the original application on 30th day of March, 2005. Subsequent to the dismissal of the original application filed by the petitioner herein, obviously on the complaint made by the petitioner, the respondent authorities by way of an order dated 13.12.2012 terminated the services of the 4th respondent. The said order of termination was questioned by the 4th respondent herein in O.A.No.1559 of 2013. The Tribunal allowed the said original application by way of an order dated 01.03.2016 on the ground that the respondent authorities did not adhere to Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1991. It is not in dispute that thereafter pursuant to a regular enquiry conducted, the 4th respondent herein was 3 terminated, vide proceedings Rc.No.1106/A1/2017, dated 13.03.2017, issued by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education.
6. Subsequently, when the petitioner herein submitted a representation to the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Kadapa with a request to consider his case for appointment as Attender in the resultant vacancy. The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, vide proceedings Rc.No.1940/A1/2016, dated 07.04.2017, solicited instructions in the matter from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, the Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education, vide proceedings Rc.No.135/OPI-I/2017, dated 11.09.2017, permitted the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Kadapa to take further necessary action on the request of the applicant/petitioner for the post of attender. Vide proceedings in Rc.No.4302/B1/2017 dated 05.01.2018, obviously in furtherance of the instructions of the Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education dated 11.09.2017, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Kadapa 4 instructed the petitioner to submit the original qualification certificates together with attestation copies to take further action in this matter. The same was followed by another letter dated 06.02.2018 addressed to the District Educational Officer.
7. Eventually, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Kadapa, vide proceedings Rc.No.2922/B1/2017, dated 29.09.2018, rejected the request of the petitioner to consider his case for appointment as an Attender on the ground that the petitioner herein did not file any other O.A. after his failure in O.A.No.593 of 2004 and the selection process was completed in the year, 2003 and that there is no panel.
8. In the above background, enclosing the aforementioned documents, an application vide I.A.No.1 of 2018, seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition, assailing the said order of rejection also, came to be filed by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition and the said I.A.No.1 of 2018 stood allowed vide separate order.
9. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner the impugned action on the part of the respondent authorities is 5 highly illegal and arbitrary and for the fault committed by the 4th respondent in the present writ petition in securing the appointment by way of misrepresentation, the petitioner herein cannot be penalized. It is further submitted that the objections taken by the official respondents herein in their counter affidavit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case are neither sustainable nor tenable.
10. On the contrary, Sri K.Bheemarao, learned Government Pleader for Services-III, appearing for the official respondents herein contends that the order passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference of this Court and the petitioner has absolutely no right to claim resultant vacancy in the absence of any waiting list. In support of his submission and contentions, the learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.4864 of 2011, dated 20th day of June, 2013.
11. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the factum of participation of the petitioner in the selection process undertaken by the respondent authorities for the purpose of 6 filling up the post of Attender. The petitioner secured 353 marks out of 600, which would come to 70.6%, whereas, the 4th respondent secured 492 marks out of 600 i.e., 82%. The basic qualification required for the purpose of consideration of a candidate for appointment as per the recruitment procedure is 7th class. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent herein pressed into service a fake certificate. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner herein, an enquiry was conducted and eventually the service of the 4th respondent was also terminated on the said ground. The counter filed by the Regional Joint Director Collegiate Education in the present writ petition also indicates that criminal prosecution was also launched against the 4th respondent.
12. The information available on record further discloses that consequent upon the termination of the service of the 4 th respondent a lot of correspondence took place and the applicant/petitioner was also asked to submit his credentials. But, by way of an order dated 29.09.2018, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, declined to consider the case 7 of the petitioner herein on the ground that the selection process was completed in the year, 2003 and there is no panel. It is absolutely not in dispute that the petitioner herein approached the Tribunal by way of filing the present O.A. in the year, 2004 and since then the litigation is pending before the Courts. It is also significant to note in this context that when the petitioner herein sought information under the Right to Information Act from the concerned Degree College, the college authorities responded to the same and informed that the posts of Office Subordinate are vacant and the 4th respondent herein is not working. The information obtained by the petitioner is also filed as an additional document vide Memo, dated 11.08.2022. In the considered opinion of this Court, for this entire episode, by any stretch of imagination, the petitioner herein cannot be faulted.
13. The judgment cited by the learned Government Pleader in W.P.No.4864 of 2011, dated 20.06.2013, in the considered opinion of this Court, would not render any assistance to the case of the respondents. A reading of the said judgment indicates that having regard to the provisions under the relevant 8 rules and taking into consideration the subsequent events i.e., holding of selections during the subsequent years, the Composite High Court refused to consider the case of the applicant and allowed the writ petition filed by the State.
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the rejection of the request of the petitioner by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, vide proceedings dated 29.09.2018, cannot stand for twin tests of reasonableness and rationality.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 30.03.2005 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.593 of 2004 and the proceedings of the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Kadapa bearing Rc.No.2292/B1/2017, dated 29.09.2018 and consequently, the official respondents herein are directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment, on the basis of the marks secured by the petitioner in the 7th class common examination, for the post of Attender/Sweeper. This exercise shall be completed within a 9 period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J _____________________ VUTUKURU SRINIVAS, J Date: 11.10.2022 krs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND 10 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VUTUKURU SRINIVAS WRIT PETITION No. 9097 of 2005 DATE: 11.10.2022 krs