Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Conservator Of Forests, Kurnool 6 Ors. vs Penugonda Sreenu 4 Ors. on 19 June, 2019
Author: J. Uma Devi
Bench: J. Uma Devi
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAl AND THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI WRIT PETITION NO: $59 OF S015 Setween: i The Conservator of Forests, Kurnool Circle, Kurnaol, 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3. State of Anchra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science & Tech. Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool Division, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 5 The Divisional Forest Officer, Proddutur Wildlife Division, Proddatur, Kadapa District 6. The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District 7. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Chief Secretary, to Government, Secretariat Bulldings, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners/Respandenis in OA Na. 890g/2074 AND i. Sri Penukonda Sreenu, S/o Nadipi Sunkanna, Technical Assistant/Draftsmen Grade-li, O/o the Divisional Forest Officer Kurnool, Kurnoal District 2. SmtP. Venkata Laxmamma, W/o Venkata Subba Reddy, Technical Assistant/Draftsmen Grade-H, O/o the Divisional Forest Officer, Proddutur Near Mik Dairy, Kadapa District, R/o H.No.2-68/J, Ramasatram Street, Yerragunila (Rs}, Kadapa District 3. Sri N.Venugepal, S/o N.Vamanna, Technical Assistant/Orafisman Srl}, O/o the Divisional Forest Officer, Sacial Forestry Division Mamthinagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District, R/o H.No.42/383-16, Bhagya Nagar Colony, Kadapa District. _.Respondents/Appticants in OA No 8990/2074 4. The Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, rep. by its Registrar, Puranahavell, Hyderabad. oO OrShanti Priya Pandey, [FS GRR 1907), ¢ Conservator of Forests, Kurnoal Circle, Kurnool (Sth respondent is a formal party, no relief is sought agains st hin) « RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstarices sisted in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased io issue an apprapriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORAR! calling for the recards relating to anc connected with the order dated 18-12-2014 in O.A.No.5963/2014 an the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and to quash ar sel sside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law. WPMP No.672 of 2048: Petition under Section 141 CPC praying thal in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 15-12-2014 in OA No.5963/2014, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. WVMP. NO: 1618 OF 2015 Between: 7. SmtpP.Venkata Laxmamma, W/o Venkata Subba Reddy, Technical Assistant/Drattsmen Grade-li, O/o the Divisional Forest Officer, Proddiutur Near Milk Dairy, Kacdapa District 2. Sri N.Venugopal, S/o N.Vamanna,, Technical Assistant/Drafisman Gr-ll, O/a the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Divisian, Mamthinagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District AND . _Petitioners/Respondent Nos.2 & 3 1. The Conservator of Forests, Kurnool Circle, Kurnool. Bhavan, Hydera bad. . the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P., Aranya 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science & Tech. Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool Division, Kurnool, Kurnoal District. 5 Farest Officer, Kadapa District, Kurnool Range, Kurnodi. & The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Maruth) Nagar, . the Divisional Kacdapa, Kadapa District Proddutur Wildlife Division, Proddatur, 7. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Chief Secretary, ta Government, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ... RespondenisAWrit Petitioners 8. Sri Penukonda Sreenu, S/o Nadipi Sunkanna, Technical _ Assistant/Draftsmen Grade-l, O/o the Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District @. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, rep. by its Registrar, Puranahavell, Hyderabad. 10. Dr.Shanti Priya Pandey, IFS (RR 1997), Conservator of Forests, Kurnool Circle, Kurnool . Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that In the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased ta vacate the Interim orders passed in WPMP No. 672 of 2015 In WP No. 559 of 2015 dated 34.23.2015, Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES Caunsel for the Respandent No.1: SREP VENKATA RAMANA Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI V.MAHESWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Na.4: SRI AP. REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI (per Mon 'ble Sri Justice A.V. Sesha Sai} This Writ Petition, filed under Article B@G of the Conshitution of India, challenges order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal } in Original Application No.5963 af 2014. a. The facts, in. brief, icacing to filing of the present case arc as follows: 2 (i). State Forest Department issucd a Notification dated O1.12.2007 inviting applications from cligible and qualified candidates for recruitment to 5 posts of Technical Assistants (Draughtsman Grade). In response to the said Notification, respondents | to 3 herein fapplicants submitted appheations aong with others. Thereafter, on 24.01 2008, respondents I to Sfapplicants were appointed as Technical Assistants. 2 (u}. The Conservator of Farests "petitioner No.1, issued a show cause natice bearin & Re.No.3633/2010/M1, dated 12.08.2010, by pointing out the folowing alleged irregularitics, which, aceording to the Department, took place during the process of the said selection. "lo Phe Post of Draughtsraan Gril is governed by the "Andhra Pradesh Forest Subordinate service Rules 2000" notified vide GO Ms, No.88, EFS&T Department Mt.19.7 2000. Ride I of the rules presoribed the methad of seleetion. Por the post of Draugkisman % Gril, the selection is based on performance in written examination and interview, The folowme two papers of two hours duration are prescribed for selection of candidates by direct recruitment: a} One in Essay writing (in English or Telugu or Urdu): b} Other in General Knowledge and mathematics (to be answered in English or Telugu or Urdu). A minimum of 85% marks in each subject but an ageregate of 40% in total is required. Whereas the written examination was conducted any in one paper comprising of Mathematics and General Knowledge for 100 marks with a duration. of (3} hours. 'A. Candidates were called for interview even though they have not secured minimum qualifying marks. Out of 15 Candidates called for interview, only two secured qualifying marks namely Sri P.Sreena and srt PLA. Murthujavall, 3. it is also observed that, against (5) vacancies, (LS) candidates were Called for interview. Records do not disclose how candidates were shortlisted. Calling the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 is also not conteriplated any where. 4 Persons who secured rore marks were not called for interview while calling the persons with lower marks, as shown hereunder: Name of the persons "to bei] a alled fe | l SC} : AWYaAvacny(s Sri Venkata Rama [Marks- 23) | {ST} (Marks- 13) oS. Out of the five candidates selected as mentioned hereunder, except one, none of the candidates secured minimum percentage even after adding the marks secured in the interview. Neo. candidate Vicket against | obtained | obtained Marks Na, Roaster in wri- m obtained! Pomt -- tlen test | Interview a ho wee of the: [ee "Selected Marks | Marks | 'Total i Pe hukonda eareenu (ST) a ; Poe a of ~ "| 3 Saag PO Ma UP Seog | Lakshmeonta | (QC) LS! "D Mamatha (OC Poa N Venu Gopal | | faCeAl 5S | KR. Ramanjane- yulu (ST} These irregularities are grave and vitiate the entire selection." 2 (iii), As against the said show cause notice dated 12.08.2010, respondents | to 3 herein filed Original Application 5573 of 2010 before the Tribunal. The Trimanal, by way of an order dated 12.04.2013, allowed said Original Application, setting aside the impugned show-cause notice dated 12.08.2010. Questioning the said order, the Department carricd the matter in Writ Petition No. 24514 of 2014 before this Court. This Court. on 26.08.2014 in WUP.M.P. No.gO717 of 2014, granted interim suspension of the order passed by the Tribunal, and the said Writ Petition is sti pending. & (iv). It is also to be noted that in response to the show cause notice dated 12.08.2010, respondents 1 to 3 herein submitted their explanations on 26.08.2010. Thereafter, the Conservator of Forests-1s! petitioner passed order vide Re. No bOO4 /2014-M_1, dated 28.09.2014, terminating respondents 1 to 3 herein from service. Assailing the validity and legal sustainability of the said order of termination, respondents | to 3 herein filed Original Application No.S963 of WL Before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on 18.12.2014, allowed the said Original Application, setting aside the order of termimation dated 28.00.2014 passed by the Conservator of Forests-18t petitioner. In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the abovesaid order passed by the Tribunal, > 3. This Court, on 31.03.2015 vide order in W.PLM.P.No.672 of 2015, suspended operation of the order of the Tribunal to the extent of respondents 2 and 3 herein, while observing that the order of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to respondent no.1 would be subject to further orders in the said WLPLM.P, '4, Heard the learned Government Pleader repre senting the State on behalf of the petilioners and Sri PV Ramana, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 applicants before the Tribun al, apart from perusing the material available befare the Court. Though the vacate application is coming up befere this Court, with the consent of the respective counsel, this Court proposes to adjudicate the issue finally. Cc o. {tis contended by the learned Government Pleader that questioned order passed by the Tribunal is highly erroneous, contrary to law and not in consonance with the material available on record, in claboration, it is maintained by the learned Government Pleader that since the process of selection pursuant to the Notification dated OL.12.2007 went on, in an Irregular and lepal manner and con trary to Rule 14 of the Andhra Prad esh Forest Suberdinate Service Rules,2000 natified vide G.O.Ms.No.88, Environment Forest Science && Technology (PORLIV) Department, dated 19.07.2000, the order of termination dated 28.00.2014, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be faulted, and that the auihoritics are perfectly justified in passing the said order having regard to the irregularities that took place during the process of selection. Jt is also the submission of the icarned Government Pleacder that against the eraployees responsible for the said irregularities vis, Smt. K.Jana Bai, Smt. B.N Sandhya and Sri RLU Kashappa, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing articles of charges on 27.09.2010, and that against Smt. K.Jana Bai and Smt, BLN Sandhya, punishment of deferment of one inerement with cumulative effect owas awarded, and against said Sri RU. Kashappa, the proceedings were dropped. In suppert of his submissions and contentions, the learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitendra Singh Bhupendrasingh v. Dr. PLD Krishi Vidyapeeth & others! &, On the contrary, it is contended by the learned courisel for respondents 1 to 3 {applicants} that there is no error, nor there exists any infirmity, in the impugned order in the Writ Petition, and in the absence of the same, the questioned order is not amenable to any judicial review under Article 226 of the om a Constitution of India. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the very appointments were questioncd by one A AP Murutujia Valli before the Tribunal by filing Original! Ody & SC AY 6 Application No.38483 of 2008 wherein the petitioners herein, who were arrayed as res pondents, <alegorically Supported ane justified the process of selection, which eventually resulted in cismissal of the said Original Application by way of order dated TO.12.9009, and that Writ Petigon NO. 10748 of 2010, Aled against the said order, was also dismissed by this Court. Tt is further submitted by the learned counsel that though respondents 1 ta 3 Submitted explanations 'replies to the show CAUSE Totice, 'contents of the said explanations were not taken inte consideration by the petitioners-authorities while passing the impuened order. itis also the Submission of the learned counsel that petitioner No.2 herein viz. the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, was viriy ally swayed away by the report of petitioner No.1} bh erein, and passed order Ref. No.278 17 /2010-T2, dated 20.07.2010. {t is further Inaintained by the learned counsel that since the subject post is Technical Assistant, which falls under category (3) of Class B, the second Step which stipulates the test of walking 25 KM is not intended for the post in question havin & regard to Rule 14 af the said Rules, It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after completion of the process of selection, the authorities did shortlist 15 candidates for the Purpose of interview viz. in the ratio of 1:3. It is further Submitted by the learned counsel that after lapse af long time, the respondents: 1 to Sfapplicants cannot be cisturbed, and that in the absence of any allegation of fraud, mate fides, malpractices, nepotism or serious infirmities in the process of % ad selection, the respondents | to 3/applicants cannot be penafized for no fault af them. To bolster his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel for respondents | to S/applicants takes the support of the following decisions. i) Vikas Pratap Singh & others v. State ef Chatiisgarh & others®; ii) Rajesh Kumar & others uv. State of Bihar & others; ui} Tender Kaur & others vu. Lady Constable Raj Kumar & others; fiv) Sanjay Singh & another vu. UP. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & anothers; & (v) Satish Rawat v. Union af india & others; f . In the above background, now, the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court are ~ (1) Whether the questioned order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.5963 of 2014 is sustainable and tenable, in the light of the submissions made by the learned Gevernment Pleader and the learned counsel for respondents | to S/applicants? and (2) Whether the order impugned is amenable for any judicial review vwnder Article 226 of the Constitution of India °? 8, There is absolutely no dispute with regard to factum of the issuance of Notification for recruitment to 5 pasts of Technical Assistants {Draughisman Grade-llj), the appointment of respondents 1 to S/applicants on 24,01 £2008 and their Sepa gk SOC AR ss '(AGT sya SCC a0 RAGA, ESOC E77 "EMGNAY E BOE 87a "RAG 7 SOO 2a continuation thereafter in the said posts, the issuance of show Cause notice, the submission of explanations by the respondents ro lta 3 /applicants, the filing of Original Application No. 557 3 of f of order dated 42010 before the Tribunal and the passin g 12.04.2012. by the Tribunal, It is also not in dispute thet respondents 1 to 3 /applicants continued in service tl the date of termination. 9, In order to consider the principal Sontention advanced by the learned Government Pleader that as the selection took place contrary to the Rules, continuation of the respondents J to 2 ? apphcants would Not enure to the ben efit of the respondents 1 to Gfapplicants, it wo ud be appropriate to refer ty the judgment cited by the learned Gevernment Plead er in' Aitencdra omgh Bhupendrasingh S Case {1 Supra), wherein at parag 3 'aph nos. 4, 5, 8, 23 ta 26, the Hon'ble Apex court held thus: "at, Several complaints appear to have been made aginst the stlection process and the resultant appointments made ly the University. Some af these camplainrs were In the form of writ petitions filed before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur while some others were addressed ta Lis Excellency, the 4OVvernor of Maharashtra who happens to be the Chancellor of the University, Out of the writ petitions fled g sainst the selection and appointmenit process, Writ Petition N GOAYF LE of 2006 inter alia prayed for x» direction to the Chancellor to institute an inquiry under section 1] of the Maharash tra Agriculture Uriversities (rishi Vidyapeeth} At, 1983 in regard to the jllegalities and irregularities committed in the selection and cornsecrient appointments against the va Cancies referred to above. By an Order dated 2Iist April, 2007 Pstssed by the High Court in the said petition, the Chancellor wag directed to take a decision in the matter on or hefore the l4th August, SOO? . 'Lowen other writ petit} CNS were simuarty filer before the High Court of Nagpur challenging the selection and appomtment process. In writ pention No.342 of 2006 filed by Shri is, Bache, the Hf sh Court Passed am interim order to the effect that the selection of the candidates shall TEMA stayed Subject to the further erders of the Court. Writ Petition No.QOS of 2006 Aled by Archana Bipte anct another also asscilecd the validity of the selection and appomtinent Brocess urideFfaken by the UW niversity on several crounds. . 9 & Howas im the above backedrep that the Cruaneellor invoked his powers inder Sent Lio (i) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities Act, 1985 and appointed Mr. Justice LW Dhahe, a former Fudge of the High Court of Bombay to examine the pepers relating to the selection and appomiment of the cardidates carcemen|d agatist the posts referred to above and to submnut a report to the Charcellor as to the feurness of the selection af ihe candidates appoimted by the University. A readine of the order passed dyy the Chancellor would shew thal apert from several allegations roace by Tor, BiG. Khathakal, Ex-View Chananiar af the Urouversity and four others, the Chancectior had before him, a report dated Sth Novernber, 2006 submitted by the Durector General. MOARR Pune from which the Chancellor noticed several irregularities allegedy committed ia the process of selection such. as vialation of Statute S2, holding of cormmon interviews for both Serier and tumor Research Assistants, appointing meritarioas candicates from the reserved category seats instead of appointing them in the oper merit category, selection of as many as 22 relatives of officers/femployees of the University, absence of any short-listing of candidates for purposes of interview even when the applications were far in excess of the advertised vacancies. There were also allewations of the selection process not being transparent apart from. allegations to the «fect that the norms for academic evaduation and viva vece examination had been flouted. $. Justice Dhabe Comuruttee took mearly Su 'cars to complete the inciry and io submit ifs report ia the Chaneclier in which the ettire process of selection and appeomitrmert care under severe criticism questioning the fairness of the selection process and the resultant appeatniments. The High Court has summed up the substance af the findings ane conclusions arrived at by Justice Dhabe in the fellow woreds: i} Ss large rrumbers of candidates were called for interview, without followmge proper rate as prescribed by the State government, i has led to selection of undeserving and Jess meritorious carididates by manyralatiom, favouritism ane other malpractices ete. 2) Although the posts of SRA and JRA belonged to two separate cadres with different pay scales, different quahtications and duties and responsibilities, the Sclection Committee held corrmmen interviews for the said posts and vitiated the selection of the candidates as their suntability could not have been properly jucdecd im such interviews tor the seul DOSLS. 3} The critema for assessment of the candidates for the posts of SRA URA wore illegal. 4) The Sclection Committes has awarded marks for PhD. Thesis submitted, rescarch papers/popular articles published and significant contribution made after the last date of application i.e. 15.00.2004 by resorting to dlegal marking m. ke Selection Committee gave higher weightage to the s eompared to academic SYA 4 Py] porformance it interview -- ¢ performance, &} The peocedure followed by the Selection Committe for awarding marks in the candidates for academic performance and performance in intersew was illegal anc invalid. am 7) There was tinkering in mark seats of the candidates, In some of the cases the mark sheets were not prepared in the meeting af the Selection Committee and they were also pct placed before any of its meeting for its consideration and approval, 8) The Chainnan and the Member Serre lary of the Selection Committee on their own without any au therity or power in them increased the n umber of posis of SRA and JRA to be tilled tri. 9) Category wise distribution af $5 pasts of SRA and *G posts af GRA was not made acearcding ta the prescribed percentage for each of the backward classes and Open Ccategury as per the relevant GRs, 10) Phe selection lists for the posts of SRA and JRA were not Prepared or considered and approved in the meeling of the Selections Camumittee. Phere were lacunae, deficiencies, legalities ancl irregularities in preparation af the selection 5 st. ll} Though in the advertisement it was Specifically provided lor wait lists to be prepared for the near future VACANCIES, TO wait lists were Prepared hy the Selection Committee, 12) The Selection Comunittee did not discharge any of its duties ariel Tesporisibilities in the selection process, 13) The entire selection process and selection of candidates pursuant thereto for the posts of SRA and JRA is vitiated by hias of Dr. Wop. Patil, Chairman of the Selection Committee. I4) As per the findings of Justice Duiabe, favouritism bas occurred in the process of sélection to the posts af SRA ancl HRA TS) The qualification of Bachelor's degree iri Agriculture ngineering wag introduced as an additional qualification for the post of URA as ber the addendum dated 00.09.2004 to the advertisement clated 14.08.2004 in which the posts of GR; were advertised with the qualification of Bachelor's degree in Agriculture. 16) Preparation of the minutes of various meetings of the Selection Comrnittes were not recorded faithfully and confirmed by its other members. The proceedings /miniutes af the meetings of the Selection Committee were probably Bbrepared after the a ppointment orders were: issued on 16.09.2005 and 17 08 POOS, T7} There were more th an 2 months delay in hanai ng over the Selection lists to the then Vice Chancellor. The reasans giver by the then Vice Chancellor for the delay in not receiving the selection lists towards th e end of June or g wy 2005 are not convincing. IS} The Reservation policy of the Government was not followed by the Urnversity, Reservations pf the posts for backward classes (sncial / vertical reservation) were not made according to their prescribed percentage as per the relevant CRs. of the state Government. 19) The graduates of the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open Ln iversity were not comsidered in the Unroversity for appomtment and promotion in the post of JRA. 20) There were legalities, laws and consequential reshy fling of the Selection Lists and other infirmities in preparation af the existing selection Hsts of these posts of SRA and JRA, Thus, the ap pointnents made in the posts of SRA and JRA 4 re, highly irregular. el} The roautine procedures for making appointment in the Wuuiversity was not follaweel in the a ppamntiments rade ta the posts af SRA and JRA. In the report it is conechuided that the eritire seleclion process aud selection of ihe candidates to the posts of SRA and JIRA is vitiated by the ilegalties, irregularities and improprietics and therefore the appointments made pursuant thereto, need to be set aside. 23, The Chancellor dechned to show any leniency to the pelilioners ne matter they had served the University for over six years primarily because the entire selection process was in. his opinion vitiated by widespread irregularities in the selection process. The findings recerded by Justice Dhabe Committee Bpon a detailed and thorough examination of the matter fully suppartecd that view of the Chancellor. The reasons that prevailed with the Chancellor cannot be said to be ilhisery or irrelevatit so as to call for utterference from a writ Court. The Chancellor was dealing with a case where the Selention Comittee had called a tes for interview without following the prapir procedure as prescribed by the State Gavernment Icading to the appomtment of undeserving candidates by manipulation and Tavouritism. It was a case where the posta of SRAs/JRAs although carrying different pay scales were clubbed for holding a common interview. Tver the eriterion for assessment of the merit of the candidates was found to be faulty. Marks were awarded for quabtications although the thesis for such qualifications was subraiited after the date preseribed for such advertisement. Marking sysicm itself was found to be erroncous. Higher weightage wes giver compared lo acedemic merit. There was tinkering in the mark sheets ef the candidates in certain cases and mark sheets were not made available in the mectings of Selection Comrittee. The Chairman and the Member Secretary of the Selection Commities had or their own increased the number of pasts af SkAs and JRAs to be filled upon. All these arrorne other aspects were cansidercd by Justice Dhabe Committee in its repart which commhaced thet the entire selection process was witiated, That beneficiaries of such faulty selection process should hold on to the benefit only because of lapse of time would be travesty of justice especially when deserving candidates were left out with a brooding sense of uyustice and cynicism against the efMeacy of the system that was meant to act fairly and objectively. Coritinuanee in office of thase sclected by means that are not fair, transparent and reasonable will amour to perpetuating the wrong, The length of service put in by the candidates whoa were scleeted oo the basis of such a faulty selection process may be one of the considerations that enters the mind of the Court but ther: are other weighty considerations that cannot be given a go bye or canvermentiy forgotten lest those wha do not adept such malprachces or thase who expect ihe system to protect their idterest and they rights are eternally disappointed and left to dalieve that a wrong onee dance will never be corrected just because the legal process by which it is to be corrected is a long and winding pracess that often takes years to reach fruition. to the perfarmance im the interview as Q } et. Having seid that we must say that the main contention which the petivioners have urged in support of their continuance it service is that they have become overage fir any government employment at this stage. Tf ousted from service the potiticners will have no place to go nor even ar oppartunity to compete for the vacancies agairist which they were appointed. That is an aspect which can be and ought to be considered especially when there is no sllegation leave alone evidence about any bribery having taken place' in the issue of appointment orders by the oliicials concerned. ven so, continuance of the petitioners in service would rot, in our opinion, be justified havin g regard to the background in which the selection an d appointments were made and eventually set asirle by the University. All that the long yeers of service rendered with the University may secure for the petihoners a direction to the effect that in any fetture selection against the vacancies caused by their ouster and other vacancies that may be avenlable for the next selection the petitioners shall aso be considered in relaxation of the upper age limit prescribed for them. Such of the petitioners whe could try their luck in the next selection and who succeed in the same will also have the benetit of continuity of service. 25. That brings us to the m ethed of selection that Thay be followed falling up the vacancies that wul be caused by the ouster of the petitioners. An affidavit has in that regard been fled by the Shri Dnyaneshwar Ashru Bharati, Registrar of the respondent-University stating that in terms of M aharashtra Act No. XSXIH of 2013 the Maharashtra State legislature has amended Maharashtra Agricultural Universities {Krishi Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983. Section 3&8 of the principal Act as substituted by Act XXX aforementioned provides that no person shall be appointed by the University as a member of the academic staff, except on the recommendation of a Selection Moard constituted for the Purpose ir accordance with the provisions of the Statutes made in that behalf. The posts of SRAs anc IRAs are classified] as academic as per Statute 71 of the MAU statutes 1990. The process of amendment to the statute 75 and 76 is now underway. The affidavit further states that the University will not be in a Position to undertake the selection process of posts acvertised on 23rd March 2012 and that selection will be done by Recruitment Board as per the new selection procedure. The affidavit is, however, silent as to the procedure that shall be followed by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose. Be that as jt may the establishment af a Selection Board and formulation of proper prececlure to be followed by the Board will go a long way in making the precess of selection and recruitment objective, fair and reasonable apart irom. bringing transparency to the norms and the precess by which such recruitments were made. We aniy hope that the process of amendment of relevant statute is expedited by the University and conchided as far as possible within six months from today arul process of fflin € up of posts of SRAs and WJRAs Currently held by the petitioners and those that were advertised in terms of advertisement dated 23rd March 2012 undertaken in accordance with such. procedure. eos "6. In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. We however direct that the Univer: yrespondent shall take necessary steps for constituting the Selection Board in terms of Section 58 af the Act as arended by Maharashtra Act No. XXXIT of 2013 and advertise the vacancies curre mily available, together with the posts that are presently held by the appellemts for reeruitment ir accardance with the procedure that may be prescribed in accordance with law. The emtire process shall be completed by the Uraversity within six months. The appellants shall alsa be edlowed to apply and participate im ihe selection process ¢ 5 the vacancies so advertised in relaxation of the upper ays Viren preseribed for such recruitment. Por a period of stx montis or til the process of selection and appointment based on the selection process is completed by the respondent, whichever is earher, the appellants shall be allowed to continue in service om the same icrms as are currently applicable ta them. In case any one of the appellants is selected by the new selection process, he shall be granted berefii of continuity of semace. But such of the appellanis who do not compete for the selection or are not selected for the posts that may be advertised shall stand ousted fram services on completion of the period of six months her: granted." 10, Coming to the judgements cited by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3/applcants- (a) In Vikews Pratap Singh & others case (2 supra}, the Han'ble Apex Court held thus: (paras 22 to 26 & 2a). "Phe pristine masim of fraus ef jus nunquan cohabitarnt fraud ane justice never dwell together) has never lost tts Leniper aver the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service Jaw junaprudence. tt is setiied law that mo legal right in respeot of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who hes obtained the e¢ moploymiert by fraud, mischiel, olisrepresentation or malafide. (See: District Collector os Ch AEM, Vidianagaram, Social Welfare 'sicterttial " Vigianagaram ash another vo M. Primura Sundari JP 3 SCC G55, bP. Chere salvar, Naidu y. Jagannath Pigo4y ] ere 1 and Union ef India anu others ¥. #995 Suppt. (4) SCC LOO}. His also settled law spainted erroncaushy on a post must tot reap fits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests af the meritoriaus and worthy candidates. Hiowever, in cases where a wrangful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the partof the appointes and upen discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a synvpathetic view in the light of various factors in chiding bonafice of the candsrlate mi such appointment and feneth of service of the andere after such. the bone appoinune rit (See: Viriodan T. anc Ors. v. Uneersity of Calicut (" "} BCC TSO, State of DLP. wv. Necrn Awasthy OOF). In Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. v. State of MP. and Ors., (2016 Hid See VOT, the High Court had invalidated the rule scribing selection procedure which awarded grace marks of recent and age relaxation te the candidates with throne rears' Jong non-formal teaching EXperlerices as & COnMSsiquence of which several candidates appointed teachers at the pie formal education institutions under the said rule stusd ousted. This Court while concurring with the observations made by the High Court kept in view that u PoM rectification of irregularities in appointment after a considerable length of time an order far caricellation of appointment would severely alfect economic security af a number of candidates ary observed as follows: "28. ...Most of them were earlier teaching in N an-formal education centers, from where they had resigned to toply in response fa the acvertisement. They hae left their previous employment in vi of the fact that for their th ree year long teaching experiences, the interviese process in the present selection was awarding them erace marks of " per cent. It had also given them a relaxation of & years with respect to their age. Now, if they Jose their jobs as a result of High Court's order, they would be effectively wu remplovyed as they vamrlot ever revert to their earlier jJebs in the Ner-formal education centers, which have been abolished since then. This would severely affect the economic security of many families, Mast of them are between the age group at SS-45 vears, and the prospects for thern of finding another job are rather dim, Same of them were in fact awaiti ng their salary rise at the time of quashing af their appointment by the High Cenart.* & ¥ 3 Therefore, mindful of the aforesaid circumstances this Court directed nomn-ouster af the candidates appointed under the uivalidated rule. rr (UO) and Avr. v. Narendra § (2008) 2 olurt considered the age of the en ployee wha Wes crroncously promoted and the duration af his service on the promoted post and the factor of retirin g trom service on attaining the age of "tiperannuation and observed as follows: "Sh. The last prayer an behalf of respondent, however, needs to be sympathetically considered. 'The respondent is holding the post of Serjor Accoun tant (Functions) since last seventeen years. He is on the verge of retirement, so much sO, that only few days have remained. He will be reaching at the age of superannuation by the end of this month ie. December Si, 2007. In our view, therefare, it would not be appropriate Now ta revert the respondent to the post of Accountant for very short period, We, therefore, direct the appellants to continue the respondent as Senior Accountant {Punchonal ul he reaches the age of Superarnncation Le. upta December 2 L, 2007. At the same time, we hold that since the action of the Authorities was in accordance with statutory Rule S$, ary order passed by the Deputy Aceountent-CGen eral canceling promotion of the respondent and reverting hirn to his Substantive post of Accountant was legal and velid and the respondent could not have beer promoted as Senior Accountant, he would be deemed to have retired as Accountant and not as Senior Accountant (Punetionals and his pensionary and retiral berufits would be fined aecordingly by treating him as Accountant all rh rough out. 32. For the foregoing reascuns, the appeal 18 parthy allowed. Though the respondent is sdlowed to continue on the post of Apex Senior Accountant (Functional) tll he reaches the age of retirement fo, December S31, 2007 and salary paid te Him in ual capenity will not be recovered, his retiral benctits will be axed omot as Senior Acceuntant [Ff uretional) but as Seen ata In the facts and circumstances of case, there shall be me order as to casts." This Court in Gujarat S Deputy Executive Engineers' Association vw. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1994 Supp (2} Sce o2l although recerded a finding that appoiritrents givers under the "weit lst' were not in accordance with law but refused to set aside such appointments in view of le neth of sorviee {five years and more). ite i Budd Nath Chaudhary ane Ors. vw Akhil Kumar and Cirs., (2001) 2 SCR 18, even though the appointments were hele ta be improper, this Court did mot disturb the appointments Q the ground that the incumbents had worked for several voats and hat gained experience and observed: "We Rave extended equitable considerations ta such selected candidates who have warked on the posts for a long period." (Sec: MLS. Mudhol or.) and Anr ov. SD. Walegkar and Ors, (PES) TP Llab 4 mC suid eid Romer Dingal and Ors. v. Stato of West Be nwa acl Os P2009) £ SCC 768} In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergene training and are efficiently serving the respondert- state for mere than thu years ard ouredloubtedhy cheir termination would mot only impinge upon the esenomic security of the appellants and their deperidants but also adversely affect their carcers. This would be highly unjust and grossiy unfair toe the a npellants who are innecent appaimices Of ar errorcous evaluation of the ariswer scripts. Howeve their comtinuation in service should acither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list." (do) In Rajesh Kumar & Others case (3 supra), the Hon'ble Court held thus: (paras 19, 20, 21, 22.4) I. The submissions made by Mr. Ran are net without merit. Cavern the mature of the defect in the answer key the most natural ane logic af carrecting the evaluation of the scnipls was to correct the key ard geb the. answer SCrIPLs re- evatuatedl oon the basis thereof There was, in the circuristances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be breld by the Commission cspecially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier cxerrdnation to call for a fresh avienipt by all cancerned. The process of re-ovalaation of the answer acripis with refererice Lo the correct key will in ad¢ition be less expensive apart from being quicker. The process would also not give army unfair advantage lo anyone of the candidates on account of the time lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the Iheh Court. suffice it to say that the re-evaluation Was and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case. "0. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while re- evaluation is a good option nut ordy ta do justice ta those who may have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the process but also to writ petitioners-respondents O to 18 in the matter of allocatin gio them their rightful place in the merit list. Such evaluation neced not rlecessariy result in the ouster of the appellants should they be found to fall below the "eat off mark in the merit list. Mr. Rao gave two reasons In support of that submission. Mirstly, he contended that the appellants are not res ponsible for the errar committed by the parties in the matter of eval tiation of the anawer scripts. The position may have been different if the appellants were guulty of any fraud, misrepresentation ar melpractice that would have deprived them of any sympathy from the Court or justified their ouster. secondly, he contended that the appellants have served the State efficiently and without any courplaint lor nearly seven years now and most of them, if net all, may have become average for fresh recruitment. within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the apport tenity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their ouster from service after their amploymert on the Basis of a properly conducted oompetilive exemination not itsel affected by any mal practice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers and lives. The experience paired by these appellants over the years would also, according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State will not have the advantage of using viluable human resource which was fou nd usefial in the semice of the people of the State of Bikar for ¢ long time. Mr. Reo, therefore, prayed for a suitable direction that while re- evaluation can determine the iner-se position of the writ petitioners and ibe appellants in these appeals, the result of such re-evaluation may not lead to their ouster from. service, if they fell below the cut off dine, aay ai. There is considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Ran, It goes without saying that the appellants were inrrocent parties who have not, in any Tnanner, e@ontributecd to the preparation of the erroneous key or the distorted result. Phere is no mention of any fraud or mal practice against the appellants who have served the State for nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter-se merit posivean may be relevant for the appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re- evaluation. Phe re-evalvation process may additionally benefit these who have lost the haope of an appotniment or the basis ofa wrong key applied for ovalualing the answer scripts. Sach of thase candidates as may be ulgtnately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re- evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis accardin g ta their mter se position or the merit list. 7 ! : Ir the result, we allow these appeals, sect aside the order passed by the Higt Court an d direct that - 4) Such of the appellants as de not make the grace after re- evaluation shall not be ousted from service, but shall foure at the bottom of the hist of selected candidates based on the first selection im terms of advertisement No.i406 of 2006 and the See cond selection held pursuant to advertisement No. 1G06 af (c} In Tender Kaur & others case (4 supra}, the Hon'ble Apex Court hele thus: nat t {paras 12 & 13). "We find that the guidelines really provide for request by the candidate for re-assessing of his/her marks and there iS TO scope for asking for re-assessment in the case of other candidates, But in view of the earlier order of the Hi gh Court that question has become academic. It is to be noted that the respondent Nas. 6 to 1G in the writ petition had competed 2 45 years of training. In the meartime they bad appeared im List w3, C and List f. In sdew of the aforesaid pecular situation we sct aside that part of the order of the igh Court by which their sclection was set aside. Tt would be inequitable to deprive them the benefits of what had been extended to them. Deficiency, U ary, in rot allotting proper marks as denc by the authorities canmot deprive themof the benefit which they have obtained. [1 is not shown that th cy were 8 party to the wrong allotment of marks at the oyginal stage. The position may have been different if that was so. That being so, this appeal is allowed. But the appellant Raj Kumari has net made the grade. Vherefore, her appeal deserves to be dismissed, which we direct. There is no substance in the plea that some of the appellants in the other appeal hacl secured Insset marks than her. But because af the citcumstances highhightes! above, we focl that the analogy carmat be extended to her. The appeals are accordingly dispasecd of." (d) In Sanjay Singh's case{S5 supra}, the Han'ble Apex Court Held thus:(para S2). "The petitioners have requested that their petitions should be treated as being in public interest and the entire selection process m regard to Civil Judee idunior Divisian) Hxarunation, 2003 should be set aside. We are unable to accept the said contention. What has beer made out is & certain inherent defects of a particular scaling system when applied to the selection Process of the Cua! Judges {Junior Division) where the problem is ene of examiner variability (strict /Hberal examiners), Neither Mala fides mor any other irregularities in the process of Selection is mace out, Phe Commission has actecl bona fide in Proceeding with the Selection aryl metther the Nigh Court nor the State Goverrment had RY grievance in regard to selections, Tn fact, the scatin & System applied had the Seal of approval of this Court in regard to the prewseus selection in S.C, Drxit (stipra}. The salected candidate have also been appointed anid functioning 88 Sudicial Officers. Further as noticed above, the scatin & System adopted b ¥y the Commission has ied te irrational and arbitrary results only in cases falling at the ends of the Spectrum, and by and large did ot alleect the Major portion of the Selection. We, therefore, direct thar our decision helding that the scaling systern ado Btecl by the Commission is asiited in regard to Civil Jide (Junior Division) Examina ton and directing modera tien, will be prospective in its application and wil} not affect the selections and appointments Mready made in pursuance of the 2003 Examination." (¢} In Satish RAWALS case (© supra), the H an'ble Apex Court thus: (paras S te O). "Gin the review application Hed by the Department it WEL specifically averred that records of the selection of the appellant and ether candidates wha were selected against Sports quota in 1902.93 were now traceable. Py rsuant to the selection made by the Departmerit the appellant had worked from 1.1999 te ?.4.2001 for hearly 8 years and 7 months except lor a bres: [rom 1.12.2000 to F2.1.2001. Now he is Overaged for any selection for any pest Under sports quota. fn the basis of the reeords that were made available at the ure when the Tribunal passed the order, the appellant was escluded from Consideration and or their own showing the difference between the appellant and Tespondent No, 3 in securing marks is not much inasmuch as both had secured almest identical marks in the written Ceaminiation with a cifference of ane mark and in the in lerview there was 4 big margin. So far as the fielt test is concerned, the resnalis thereof were not Yery categorical as to the Competence of the candidates because the appellant and respondent No. 3 fell in Iwo different CAlLeLOries, one ag a Goal Keeper and the other as a Deep Defender. On this basis, the appedlanit's appointment ts Justifiable. Respondent No, 3 could net have Hisplaced the appellarnt but fer the order made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal hetd that on the basis of the records before it, he was entitled to bye considered tea the exclusion of the appellant. Psd complete records been placed before the Tribunal appropriate conchasion could have been dra WN. Por the rese that Brase on appointierit of the appellant and rot SUPPorting jt. erdy and for appointment OF respondent Ne. 3, the De Partment is entirely hlareworthy. U row respaundent No.3 is displaced by ihe appellant, he will be aproated. oir the mreumstances of the case we think that the appointment of respondent No. 3 as directec! by the Tribunal should net be disturbed. However, in the peculiar facts ef the CaS¢ as arise now, it would be proper for the Department to provide a post to the appellant arid such post Wo net available shall be created on supernumerary basis to be absorhed when a regular vacamey erises. However, the appellant shall cot be entitied to ary monetary benefits for the period he had not worked. He be appointed in the pest on the basis he had been orginally appointed in 1992 and due benefits of inercments he given to hira and his pay-sceale should be appropriately fice on the basis of last pay drawn at the time of his discharge fram service." Ti. Im the considered opinion of this Court, the judgement rendered by the flon'ble Apex Court in Hitendra SEigh Bhupencdrasingh's case (1 su pra), would not render any assistance to the writ petitioners herein, havin & repard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and in the absence of any manipulation or favouritism or other mal- practices, or contingency, as observed in the abave pudgement. It is also ta be noted that the judgements relied on, by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to G/applicants are squarely applicable ta the instant case, 12, It ts alse significant to note that this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for respondents | to Gfappheants that second petitioner herein was swayed away by the report of petitioner No.l h erem, and passed order Ref. No. 27817 (2010-72, dated 20.07.2010, wherein the petitioner No.l observed that selections done have to be set aside. 20 1S. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal took note of the conduct of the writ peutioners-authorities in justifving the selection process, in the Original Application No.8483 of 2008 filed by one ALP. Murutuja Valli, an unsuccessful candidate in the subject selection. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that innocent candidates, who got selection and the appointments 7 vears ago, cannot be penalized. The said finding, in the considered Opinion of this Court, is in accordance with th e law laid down in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to sfapplicants. The Tribunal also observed that tho ugh the respondents 1 to 3 / applicants submitted their explanations to the show cause notices, both the authorities did not take the same into consideration and the impugned order was passed as per the decision taken by the Chief Conservator of Forests that the selection. process was wrong. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that petitioner No.2 Vid not act on his own and did not take the decision independently in accordance with Rules. The Triburial event ually did set aside the order of termination dated 23.09.2014 by assigning cogent, valicl ane CONVINCING reasons. [tis a settled and well established principle of Law that a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari can be issued onhy when there is patent perversity or jurisdictional error in the impuened order, In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in syed Yakoob vu. KS. Radhakrishnan & athers, wherein the Hom ble Apex Court, in paragraph no.?, held as follows: "The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts i issuing a writ af certiorari chsele APE 226 has beecn frequently considered by this Court and the true legal postion in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of cerliorar: car be isaned for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals; these arc cases where orders are passed by inferior couris ar tribunals without jurisdiction, or im excess of it, or as a result of fadhure to exercise jurisdiciions, A writ can similarly be issued where im exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it ' decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard , to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural fustice, There is, however, ro doubt that the jurisdiction te issue a writ of ceriiorar) is a supervisory jorisciction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limiation necessarily means that findimgs of fant reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of lew which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but mot an error of tact, however grave it may appear to be. Th regard to a finding of Pact recorded by the Trilvunal, a wnt af certiorarl can be issued if it is shown that in recor ding the said finding, the, Tribunal had. erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously acdimuittecd madmissible evidence which bas influenced the impugned fidding. Similarly, ia finding of fact is based an no evidence, thal would be regarded as an error of lew which. ean be corrected by a writ of certiorari, in deahnge with this category of cases, hawever, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recarded by the Tri brane cannot he challenged ir proceedings for a writ af certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was! insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence leclon a point and the inference of fact ia be drawn fren. the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. TL is within these Limite that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a Writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (ide E Karoath ve Syed Abmed Ishaquc(l}, Nagendra Nat 4 OW The Gorounissioner of Hu Is Division and Appeals, Assam{2), ° » and Kaushalya Devi vy. Bachittar Singh(3}." In the instant case, in the considered opinien of this Court, there is no jurisdictional errer or patent irregularity and the same are conspicuously absent. Having regard to the above reasons, the baw feid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the impuened order, this Court does net find any merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to COSA. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if ary pending, in the _ Sd/- LNAGA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY)! See SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Han'ble SRI JUSTICE A.\V.SESHA SAI (For His Lardship's Kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI (For Her Lordship's Kind Perusal) To, 1. The Registrar, Hon'ble ALP. Administrative Tribunal, Puranahaveli, Hyderabad. 2. OLR. Copies. 3. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Advocates' Association Library, High Court of A.P., Amaravati. oS. Two CCs to the GP for Services, High Court of Andhra Practesh [QUT] 6. One CC to SRI P.VENKATA RAMANA, Advocate fOPUC} ¢. One CC fa SRIV.MAHESWAR REDDY, Advocate fOPUC] 6. One CC ta SREA.P. REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two C.D. Copies MRC aN a a. & ik, irr eg Ling $ rigs Z, - He, Werrgyy ld ee y "th, fr thy i ye we Uf Ue \, 4 * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WP.No.559 of 2075 WITHOUT COSTS DATED:19/06/2049 ORDER
HIGH COURT