Telangana High Court
Tholu Hemanth Kumar vs The Director on 19 June, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.12674 of 2021
ORDER:
1. Heard Sri B.Krishna, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondents in not selecting him to the post of Accountant in the respondent-Organization in pursuance to the Employment Notification No.NIPR- HYD/02/2020-21 on the ground of none found suitable in spite of the petitioner was at Serial No.1 in the merit list with 60.75 marks in overall examination and the said action of the respondents is illegal, 2 SK,J W.P.No.No.12674 of 2021 unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and also violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in response to the Notification issued by the respondents-Organization, the petitioner applied for the post of Accountant with Admit Card No.2028 and participated in the written examination and on the same day the respondents have conducted skill test at 12.00 Noon with a short-list of 1:6 ratio, wherein the petitioner stood at 1st rank and thereafter the respondents announced the final results on 16.04.2021 mentioning that none found suitable for the post of Accountant.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the syllabus for the post of Accountant was General English, General Knowledge, 3 SK,J W.P.No.No.12674 of 2021 logical/mathematical aptitude, skill/technical test based on FRSR, GFT and other service-related rules and regularization on accounting and finance. The pattern of examination was the written test for 100 marks i.e. 80 marks for work related topic and 20 marks for other than work related topics, as mentioned in the syllabus. Securing a minimum of 50% in work related topic is mandatory for consideration of the candidate. The petitioner secured 60.75 marks in over all examination and stood at 1st rank and in spite of that the respondents have declared that none found suitable.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after announcing the results, the respondents furnished information to an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act filed by one Mr.Yeswara Rao in F.No.NIPER-H/RTI 2021-25, 4 SK,J W.P.No.No.12674 of 2021 wherein the respondents informed that no marks were allotted for the skill test, which is only qualifying in nature and no interview was conducted for the post of Accountant.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the Notification and the rules issued by the Government of India, the criteria for selection of a candidate for the post of Accountant is only written test and no interviews/skill test is prescribed for the selection of post of Level-7 i.e. Accountant, but the respondents have called the petitioner and others in the name of skill test and declared that none was found suitable and the said action of the respondent is contrary to the law.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the Information furnished under 5 SK,J W.P.No.No.12674 of 2021 RTI Act, the respondents informed that no marks were allotted to the skill test, which is only qualifying in nature and no interview was conducted for the post of Accountant and the respondents cannot deny the appointment to the petitioner who stood at 1st rank and the said action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
8. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner in reply to the counter filed by the respondents submits that the respondents have called for skills test which was against the Notification and Rules issued by the Government of India, but not conducted any test and requested to call for the records pertaining to the skill test and verify any question paper or answer sheets of the participants for evaluation in the skill test and requested to allow the writ petition. 6
SK,J W.P.No.No.12674 of 2021
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents basing on the counter submits that the respondents have issued the Notification in October, 2020 calling for the applications from the eligible and suitable candidates for direct recruitment to the posts of non-faculty posts including the post of Accountant wherein it was clearly mentioned that there will be skill/technical based test based on FRSR, GFR and other service related rules and regulations on Accounting and Finance. The written test and skill tests were conducted on 06.04.2021 by the NIPER and the petitioner along with other applicants attended the same. On the basis of performance of the written test six candidates including the petitioner were selected for the skill test for the post of Accountant and wherein it was observed that none found up to the mark for the 7 SK,J W.P.No.No.12674 of 2021 final selection and the said observation was placed on the NIPER website on 16.04.2021.
10. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that the Selection Committee after having evaluation of the performance of the candidates had not only furnished the remarks 'none found suitable' for the post of Accountant but also for the other posts which were mentioned in the Notification. The contention of the petitioner that NIPER, Hyderabad is conducting interviews in the name of skill test is not correct and the skill test was conducted as per the requirement of the post as mentioned in the syllabus and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
11. After hearing both sides, this Court directed the respondents to produce the records pertaining to the skill test conducted on 06.04.2021 and after taking four adjournments, the respondents produced the 8 SK,J W.P.No.No.12674 of 2021 record. A perusal of the record produced by the respondents, it discloses that there is no document to show about the analysis of the six candidates, who appeared in the skill test, including the petitioner. It shows only the profiles of the candidates which includes the details of qualifications of the candidates and their experience. No questionnaire was issued to the candidates for evaluating their skills.
12. This Court specifically asked the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents to produce the record about the evaluation sheets, but the respondents failed to produce any record or proceedings with regard to evaluation sheets of each and every candidate who appeared for the skill test for the post of Accountant and there is no analysis on the record with regard to skill test. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the entire available records for selection 9 SK,J W.P.No.No.12674 of 2021 to the post of Accountant were placed before this Court and taking into account of the same and pass appropriate orders.
13. It clearly shows that the respondents without evaluating the knowledge of the petitioner and others as per the syllabus prescribed in the Notification orally declared that none of the candidates were found suitable. In fact the petitioner stood at 1st rank in the merit list by securing 60.75 marks and the respondents without any evaluation in the skill test declared that none found suitable for the post. Moreover, there is no qualifying marks for the skill test and it is only qualifying in nature. The action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner to the post of Accountant, who stood at 1st rank in the merit list, is arbitrary and illegal.
10
SK,J W.P.No.No.12674 of 2021
14. In view of the above finding, this writ petition is allowed by declaring the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner to the post of Accountant is contrary to the Employment Notification and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Accountant as per his merit for the Post Code NT-007 in pursuance to the Employment Notification No.NIPER- HYD/02/2020-21 within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date: 19.06.2023 trr