Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G.Deepika vs K.Swetha on 16 March, 2020
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
+WRIT PETITION Nos.8630, 10549 & 12106 OF 2018
%16.03.2020
W.P.No.8630 of 2018
Between:
# G.Deepika, D/o G.V.Ramana,
Aged about 30 years, Occ:Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector,
RTO Office, Ananthapur District.
... Petitioner
And
$ K.Swetha, D/o Lokanadha Reddy,
Aged about 25 years, r/o H.No.15-1960, Ashokpuram,
Chittoor District & 4 others.
.. Respondents
! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Dr.Sofia Begum.
^ COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: G.P.for Services-I, Sri Addanki
Ramachandra Murthy, Standing
Counsel for APPSC.
W.P.No.10549 of 2018
Between:
# Yadiki Sweta Bindu, W/o Amarendra Reddy,
Aged about 31 years, R/o Flat No.403,
Shilpa Sadan Apartments,
Near S.P.Bungalow, Rajareddy Street,
Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
1
Transport, Roads and Buildings Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Talluru Mandal,
Guntur District - 522 238 & 4 others.
.. Respondents
! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: M/s P.V.Mahesh.
^ COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: G.P.for Services-I, Sri Addanki
Ramachandra Murthy, Standing
Counsel for APPSC &
Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy for
Sri K.Ram Mohan.
W.P.No.12106 of 2018
Between:
# The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission,
Rep.by its Secretary, New HOD Buildings,
M.G.Road, Vijayawada,
Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
... Petitioner
And
$ M/s Swetha, D/o Lokanadha Reddy,
Aged about 23 years, Unemployee,
R/o H.No.15-1960, Ashokpuram,
Chittoor District & 4 others.
.. Respondents
! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Sri C.Srinivasa Baba.
^ COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: G.P.for Services-I & Sri D.A.Prem
Chand.
< Gist:
>Head Note
? Cases referred
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.8630, 10549 & 12106 OF 2018
COMMON ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai) Since all these three Writ Petitions arise out of one order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called as 'Tribunal'), this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Writ Petitions by way of this common order.
2. In W.P.Nos.8630 of 2018 and 10549 of 2018, respondents 4 and 5, in O.A.No.310 of 2016 on the file of the Tribunal, are the petitioners. In W.P.No.12106 of 2018, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter called as 'APPSC') is the petitioner.
3. All these Writ Petitions assail the order, dated 19.01.2018, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.310 of 2016. One Ms.K.Swetha filed the aforementioned Original Application on the file of the Tribunal, questioning the orders of appointment of the petitioners in W.P.No.8630 and 10549 of 2018 as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors. In response to the notification issued by the APPSC, dated 29.12.2012, inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors, 3 applicant in the Original Application and the unofficial respondents therein also applied. By way of the orders, dated 13.05.2014 and 05.06.2014, the official respondents in the Original Application were appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors.
4. It is not in controversy that the applicant in the Original Application secured 134 marks in the written examination and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the Original Application secured 128 and 127 marks respectively. Prior to the aforesaid appointment orders, dated 05.05.2014, 13.05.2014, the APPSC published a list of provisionally selected candidates to the subject post on 05.05.2014. On the ground that the applicant was denied the appointment, contrary to the Educational Qualifications prescribed as per the Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service Rules (for brevity, 'Rules'), vide paragraph No.2 of the notification, dated 29.12.2012, applicant approached the Tribunal by arraying the petitioners in W.P.Nos.8630 and 10549 of 2018 as respondent Nos.4 and 5 respectively. The official respondents contested the matter by way of filing counter-affidavit. The Tribunal, by way of an order, dated 19.01.2018, allowed the Original Application and, while setting aside the orders of appointment of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 4 in the Original Application in Zone-IV, directed the official respondents to review the selection and appointment of the unofficial respondents in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules and to consider the claim of the applicant under second proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in Zone-IV against OC (W) vacancies under Notification 21/2012. Questioning the validity and the legal sustainability of the said order, passed by the Tribunal, these Writ Petitions have been filed.
5. Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Srinivas Madiraju, and Dr. Sofia Begum, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.10549 and 8630 of 2018, Sri Addanki Ramachandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for APPSC, appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.12106 of 2018, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, and Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant in the Original Application/respondent in these Writ Petitions, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.
6. It is contended by Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel, and Sri Addanki Ramachandra Murthy, learned 5 Standing Counsel for APPSC, and the learned Government Pleader that the order passed by the Tribunal, setting aside the orders of appointment, issued in favour of the unofficial respondents in the Original Application, is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Rules.
7. It is further submitted by Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel, that the Tribunal should have dismissed the Original Application filed by the applicant on the ground of delay having regard to the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that, since the applicant did not question the list of the selected candidates, published by the APPSC on 05.05.2014, the Tribunal should have dismissed the Original Application.
8. It is the submission of the learned Government Pleader that, since the official respondents herein conducted the examination and made the recruitment, strictly in accordance with the Rules, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with such process of selection.
9. It is not in controversy that, in order to resolve the issue in 6 these Writ Petitions, it may be appropriate to refer to the Rules, notified vide G.O.Ms.No.71 Transport Roads & Buildings (Ser.IV), dated 19.02.2019. The post of the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector falls under the category-I of the said Rules. As per the said Rules, the method of appointment and qualifications, as stipulated in the Annexure, are as follows:
Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.71, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Ser.IV) Department, dated 19.02.2009:
CATEGORY METHOD OFAPPOINTMENT QUALIFICATIONS (1) (2) (3)
1. Assistant Motor By Direct No person shall be eligible for Vehicles Inspector Recruitment appointment to this post unless he possesses the following qualifications, namely:-
Must hold a degree in Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or a Provincial Act or a State Act or Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission or any equivalent qualification.
OR Must hold a Diploma in Automobile Engineering issued by the State by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh or Technological Diploma Examination Board, Hyderabad or any other equivalent qualification; and Must hold a Motor Driving Licence and have experience in driving motor vehicles for a period of not less than three years and possess Heavy Transport Vehicle Endorsement:
Provided that where persons with three years experience in driving motor vehicles are not available, persons with two years experience in driving motor vehicles may be appointed.
Provided further that in case of Women, they must hold a Motor Vehicle driving licence, if they are holder of Light Motor Vehicle Driving Licence only, they shall acquire the Transport Vehicle Endorse- ment within two years of their joining the service as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, failing which their services will 7 be terminated without assigning any reasons.
By transfer of by Promotion: Must hold a degree in Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or Provincial Act or a State Act or Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission or any equivalent qualification.
OR Must possess a diploma in Automobile Engineering issued by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, A.P., or any other qualification recognized as equivalent thereto; and Must hold a Motor Driving Licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles and possess Heavy Transport Vehicles endorsement with two years experience.
10. In fact, the notification issued by the APPSC also contained the above said particulars at paragraph No.2. There is absolutely no controversy in the reality that the applicant secured more number of marks than the unofficial respondents in the Original Application.
11. It is very much clear and vivid from a reading of the provision of law, i.e. Rule 6 of the Rules r/w the Annexure, referred to supra, that, in the case of women candidates, they need to hold Heavy Motor Vehicle driving licence and, if they are holders of Light Motor Vehicle driving licence only, they need to acquire the Heavy Motor Vehicle driving licence within two years of their joining the service. Therefore, so far as women candidates are concerned, they need not have heavy transport vehicle endorsement as on the date of appointment as Assistant 8 Motor Vehicles Inspectors and the said qualification can be acquired within two years from the date of joining service of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors. In the instant cases, the applicant did possess the Light Motor Vehicle driving licence as on the date of consideration for appointment. Therefore, the stand taken by the authorities, that the failure to possess the Heavy Motor Vehicle endorsement as on the date of appointment of a woman candidate against the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector post is filled, is not in accordance with the Rules. So far as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Sri M.Surender Rao, touching the delay aspect, it is to be noted that the APPSC published the list of provisionally selected candidates on 05.05.2014. According to the applicant, a representation was made to the authorities on 10.08.2014. It is also pertinent to note, in this context, that in the Original Application, at paragraph No.6-L, the applicant categorically stated that she was not aware of the appointment of the party respondents and she sought information under the Right to Information Act and, thereafter only, she realised the process in which the unofficial respondents were appointed and, thereafter, she made a representation on 10.08.2014.
12. In the instant cases, on 13.05.2014 and 05.06.2014, the 9 appointment orders were issued in favour of the unofficial respondents in the Original Application. It is also not in controversy that the above events compelled the applicant to approach the Tribunal by way of filing the Original Application in the month of January, 2016. This issue also is not in controversy. In order to consider the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Sri M.Surender Rao, with regard to the limitation, it would be appropriate to refer to Sections 20 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which read as under:
"Section 20: APPLICATION NOT TO BE ADMITTED UNLESS OTHER REMEDIES EXHAUSTED -
(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances, - (a) if a final order has been made by Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or
(b) where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired.
(3) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), 10 any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or to the Governor of a State or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial. Section 21. LIMITATION -
(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application, -
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-
section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where -
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application 11 within such period".
13. It is very much lucid from a reading of Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act that an individual would be entitled to approach the Tribunal within one year from the date of expiry of six months from the date of filing/submitting representation or appeal. In the instant cases, admittedly, the applicant submitted representation on 10.08.2014 and approached the Tribunal in the month of January, 2016. Therefore, it cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the applicant approached the Tribunal with delay. So far as the contention, with regard to failure to assail the provisional list published by the APPSC, is concerned, it is to be noted that, as rightly pointed out by Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, leaned Senior Counsel, the said list is only a provisional list and the final orders, appointing the unofficial respondents, were issued on 13.05.2014 and 05.06.2014 respectively. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel, Sri M.Surender Rao, touching the said aspect, is also liable to be rejected. In fact, the Tribunal, after elaborately and meticulously considering the above legal position, and having regard to the marks secured by the parties to the litigation and keeping in view Rule 6 of the Rules and Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Rules, while setting aside the orders, dated 13.05.2014 and 05.06.2014, directed the 12 official respondents to review the selections in accordance with law.
14. It is a settled and well established principle of law that a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari cannot be issued unless the order/action suffers from jurisdictional error or patent perversity and passed/taken in violation of the principles of natural justice. The said contingencies are conspicuously absent in the Writ Petitions on hand. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to meddle with the well-reasoned and well-articulated orders passed by the Tribunal, which are impugned in the present Writ Petitions.
15. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI,J ___________________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 16th March, 2020.
Note:
LR copy to be marked.
B/o Tsy 13