Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V.Gangadhar Naik, vs The District Educational Officer, on 31 July, 2024
APHC010278702020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 18421/2020
Between:
V.gangadhar Naik, ...PETITIONER
AND
The District Educational Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T S N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR EDUCATION
2. GP FOR SERVICES III
3. GP FOR SERVICES IV
4. N RANGA REDDY (SC MC RSEEMA SPSR NLR) The Court made the following Order:
This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"....to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc.Rc.No.863/A2/DSC/2008, dated .5.2020 issued by the 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and colourable exercise of power and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of 2 Language Pandit (Telugu) with effect from the date on which the unofficial respondent was appointed to the said post as per his ranking obtained in DSC 2008 in terms of the Judgment of the Honble Tribunal in O.A.No.11470 of 2009 dated 7.2.2011 with all consequential benefits ...."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the DSC notification was released on 06.12.2008 for filling up vacancies of Language Grade-II and the petitioner appeared for written test and obtained Rank No.486 with 53 marks. The petitioner filed O.A.No.11158 of 2009 seeking a direction to the respondents to verify particulars and permit the petitioner for counseling on 16.10.2009 without insisting on Telugu Pandit Training Certificate. The Tribunal passed an interim order on 14.10.2009 directing the respondents to permit the petitioner for counseling. One Ms.Ramavath Sankaramma, who is unofficial respondent in this writ petition secured only 36 marks with Rank No.1187 and belong to S.T. Category was included in the selection list. According to notification, there is one post of Language Pandit (Telugu) Grade-II was notified as ST(General). The respondents has considered the case of Ms.Ramavath Sankaramma, who got far lesser marks when compared to the petitioner and appointed the said unofficial respondent as Language Pandit (Telugu) Grade-II without considering the merit. Questioning the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed O.A.No.11470 of 2009 before the Tribunal. The respondents filed counter in the said O.A. stating that, one vacancy of Telugu Pandit Grade-II is earmarked for ST General. However, at the time of counseling, the 3 Commissioner, Anantapuram Municipality shown the vacancy as ST (W) and filled in by the said unofficial respondent and if the roster point is considered for ST (General), the appointment of unofficial respondent is to be cancelled. After considering the entire matter, the Tribunal allowed the said O.A.No.11470 of 2009, dated 07.03.2011, directing the respondents to issue appropriate orders appointing the petitioner as Language Pandit Grade-II in the vacancy that was notified for ST (G) in DSC-2008 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
3. The 3rd respondent called for remarks from the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the 1st respondent submitted report duly informing that at the time of filling up of vacancies of Telugu Pandit Grade-II, the Municipal Authorities have shown ST (G) vacancy as ST (W) for reasons not known and also due to over sight, it is not observed. Therefore, the 3rd respondent requested the 1st respondent to examine the issue and submit the reply duly verifying the connected records in the matter. The 3rd respondent issued Proc.Rc.No.2105/RC-1/2009, dated 27.10.2011 directing the 1st respondent to implement the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.11470 of 2009 and report compliance immediately. The 1st respondent did not implemented the order of the tribunal. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent dated 25.05.2015 requesting to consider the petitioner as Language Pandit Grade-II by duly implementing orders of the Tribunal. As nothing has been 4 done, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Minister, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 06.08.2018 and requested to do justice. Basing on the letter addressed by the Chief Minsiter Office, the 3rd respondent issued Rc.No.2105/TRC-1/2009, dated 20.11.2018 requesting the 1st respondent to examine the representation and furnish latest detailed report. However, no action has been taken. As such, the petitioner filed O.A.No.322 of 2019 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the 1 st respondent to pass appropriate orders regarding selection of the applicant in ST roster point keeping in view the marks secured by him in terms of the order in O.A.No.11470 of 2009 dated 07.02.2011 and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. But the 1st respondent had not taken any action in appointing the petitioner as Language Pandit Grade-II. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The official respondents filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was studying language pandit training course in school education and HRD Dravida University Srinivasa Vanam, Kuppam during the academic year 2007- 2008 and during the period of DSC-2008 notification, he got bonafide certificate on 05.02.2009 and the petitioner submitted the declaration stating that he was studying language pandit training at that time of submitting DSC- 5 2008 application. The petitioner appeared for the post of Language Pandit Grade-II on the declaration that he is going to appear TPT exam in the month of May 2009 and also admitted that if he fails to submit original pass certificate at the time of DSC-2008 selection, his candidature may rejected or cancelled, instead that the petitioner appeared for the said exams held on June 2010. The Commissioner of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide Progs.Rc.No.2265/RC/2009, dated 09.03.2011 issued clear instructions that the candidates who have acquired requisite qualifications for which the exam was not held during the month of May 2009 are not eligible. The petitioner approached the Tribunal contending that the resondents have filled the post as ST (W) vacancy instead of ST (G). Then, the Tribunal issued orders to rectify the defects and consider the case of the applicant for the post of Language Pandit Grade-II and pass appropriate orders within a stipulated time. Therefore, the Commissioner of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad was addressed duly submitting the factual position that, prior to counseling ST(G) was shown in reservation category wise vacancy. But during the counseling, it was shown as ST (W) for the reasons not known and requested for necessary orders. Accordingly, Speaking orders are issued to the petitioner i.e., rejection order vide Progs.Rc.No.863/A2/DSC-2008, dated 09.05.2012 of the District Educational Officer, Ananthapuramu. Aggrieved by the speaking orders, the petitioner filed O.A.No.322 of 2019 before the 6 Tribunal and the Tribunal issued interim directions dated 08.03.2019, directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders regarding selection of applicant in ST roster point keeping in view the marks secured by him in terms of the order in O.A.No.11470 of 2009 dated 07.02.2011, where under the applicant has earlier succeeded and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Further, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2303 of 2020 before this Court for non-implementation of the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the tribunal in O.A.No.322 of 2019. This Court vide order dated 04.02.2020 directed the respondents to take action as per O.A.No.322 of 2019 dated 08.03.2019 and to pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. Heard Mr.T.S.N.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV, for the respondents.
6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.28, Education Department, dated 29.01.2009 directing to permit all those candidates studying in final year of qualifying academic/professional course and appearing for final year examination in the month of March/April/May, 2009 to appear for DSC-2008. The petitioner has satisfied 7 the above said condition, but due to medical and domestic circumstances, the petitioner could not complete the internal examinations and therefore delay in receiving the certificate. He further submits that the respondents are giving undue favouritism to the unofficial respondent and raised this contention only after issuance of the orders of this Court in WP.No.2303 of 2020, datd 04.02.2020 to implement orders of the tribunal in O.A.No.11470 of 2009 dated 07.02.2011, which was never raised for the past one decade. He further submits that, in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court has passed an order in W.P.No.20226 of 2012, wherein this Court has directed the respondents to comply with the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to allow the writ petition.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has passed the Language Pandit Training Examination conducted during January, 2010 instead of April/May 2009. Hence, the petitioner is not eligible for the post of Language Pandit Telugu as the professional qualification does not satisfy the rule 6(1) of G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 29.01.2009 and also even after rectification of defects as directed in O.A.No.11470 of 2009 dated 07.02.2011. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader requests this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
8
8. On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the material on record, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, with a direction to the respondents to comply with the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.11470 of 2009, dated 07.02.2011, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS