Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner had appeared for the examination held for the post of Lecturer conducted by the APPSC vide notification No.26/2018 dated 31.12.2018. The petitioner has qualified for the interview and accordingly call letter has been issued vide its Memo No.575/D.L/2018, dated 01.02.2021. The petitioner was called to the oral interview and during certificate verification the respondent authorities stated that the petitioner did not possess requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer-Computer science, therefore denied to participate in an oral interview.

The specific contention of the petitioner is that as per APPSC the schedule for interview is completed for the said post. If the petitioner is not permitted to participate in the interview, she will be put to irreparable loss and injury. The petitioner is qualified for the post having secured highest marks in the written test. The respondent authorities initially allowed the petitioner to participate in the written examination satisfying the qualification criteria. The petitioner is being denied participation in the process of selection intentionally and at the stage of interview the respondent authorities. Even though the petitioner possessed requisite qualification. Hence, the present writ petition.

Sri Addanki Ramachandra Murthy, learned Standing counsel for APPSC contended that the petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of notification and participated in the examination, that the notification is legal and she waived her right to question the validity of condition in the notification and thereby the petitioner is entitled to claim any relief in the writ petition. Consequently, the denial of opportunity to participate in the interview to this petitioner is not illegal or arbitrary and thereby the petition is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself and requested to dismiss this writ petition.

16 MSM,J Learned Standing Counsel for APPSC Sri Rama Chandra Murthy mainly contended that when the petitioner participated in the process of selection appearing for the examination, she is not entitled to question the clause contained in the advertisement as she waived such right and thereby disentitled to raise such objection.

Learned Standing Counsel, in support of his contention, placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madras Inst.Of Dev. Studies & Anr vs K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors24, wherein it was held that when a candidate, who consciously takes part in the process of selection, he subsequently can turn around and question the very method of selection process. Moreover, even on merits, the condition that the selection process be based on regulations was not correct. Academic Authorities about the suitability of a candidate to be appointed as Associate Professor in a research institute cannot normally be examined by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Having regard to the fact that the candidates so selected possessed all requisite qualifications and experience and, therefore, their appointment cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of qualification and experience.