Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(xvii) That the reservation quota has not been correctly followed and overall reservation has even exceeded 50% in some cases which is violative of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, ;
(xviii) That the Government had cancelled the examination in Anantapur district on the basis of just paper reports and the issue raised on the floor of the Legislative Assembly and that there was no other material., much less, legally acceptable material to cancel examination. In the alternative, it is contended tliat the circumstances and material are similar in other districts and following the analogy of Anantapur, the Government ought to have cancelled the examination in all the districts as they are similarly placed and in not doing so, the Government had acted with discrimination; and (xix) The Tribunal ought to have directed the publication of results in all the centres of Cuddapah, but erred in withholding the declaration of results even ignoring the report of the Secretary to School Education. In the alternative, it was pleaded that not only in 7 centres, but in all the centres of Cuddapah, the examination ought to have been cancelled. It is also contended that the Tribunal had erred in directing the Committee to enquire into the allegations of mal-practice in 7 centres of Cuddapah and then leaving the decision, basing on the said report, to the authorities and thus, abdicating the judicial functions of the Tribunal.

17. Sri Praiap Narayan Sanghi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.22799 of 1998, submits that the petitioner was qualified in the written examination and was also called for interview, but because of reduction in the qualifying mark, in view of G.O. Rt. No.618, he was not selected and the persons who have scored less marks than the petitioner in the written examination were selected and that the petitioner has been unduly deprived of the right to appointment and that G.O. Rt. No.618, dated 18-5-1998, is illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. In other respects, he adopted the arguments of Sri S. Ramachandra Rao. Mr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No.21439 of 1997 has also addressed on the necessity of independence of judiciary and assailing the provisions of the Tribunals Act, had adopted the arguments of Sri S. Ramachandra Rao. Mr. ty.N. Narasimha Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No.22039 of 199S has assailed the judgment of the Tribunal in OA No.3366 of 1998 and submitted that the written examination conducted ought to have been cancelled not only in the 7 centres of Cuddapah, but in all the centres of Cuddapah district and that even with regard to 7 centres, the Tribunal had erred .in abdicating its judicial functions entrusting the same to the Executive. On the other hand, Mr. KJagan Mohan Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP No.22809 of 1998 has assailed the Order of the Tribunal stating that there are no grounds to even order enquiry with regard to 7 centres in Cuddapah, that the Tribunal went wrong in making that exercise, as the Secretary to Government had already reported that excepting sporadic incidents, the written examination on the whole was not vitiated and that the enquiry in 7 centres was uncalled for and sought for declaration of the results of the written examinations held. Mr. K. Jagan Mohcin Reddy, similarly sought the same prayer in Writ Petition No. 19784 of 1998 relating to Anantapur district and it was the subject matter of OA No.3513 of 1998 in the Tribunal, complaining that absolutely there is no material to cancel the written examination in Anantapur district and only on the basis of the statement made by the Minister on the floor of the Assembly, the written examination was cancelled and that there is absolutely no material, much less, legally acceptable/ material to cancel the written examination and sought for declaration of the results on the basis of the written examination held on 19-4-1998 and he was critical of the approach of the Tribunal in holding that the cancellation ofthe written examination is a matter of policy of the Government and strenuously contended that it was for the judicial authorities to consider on objective standards as to weather the written examination was vitiated. Mr. N. Ranga Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.22633 of-1998 has sought for the declaration of results on the basis of the re-examination conducted in Anantapur district on 12-8-1998; but, this will depend upon the result in WP No.19784 of 1998.

"Enquiry Report in Teachers Recruitment Test 1998 Held on 19-4-1998 & 20-4-1998 In Cuddapah District In pursuance of the instructions from the Chief Secretary to conduct a detailed enquiry based on which a decision either to withhold the results or to release the results for finalising the teachers selection be taken, I have proceeded to Cuddapah by Rayalaseema Express on 11-5-1998. As the Collector was not available, I had earlier spoken to the Joint Collector and DRO and requested them to release a press note to be published on 11-5-1998 indicating that Government have deputed a senior officer to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations of mass-copying etc., at Cuddapah. Accordingly, a press note has been published in all the newspapers. The enquiry commenced from 9.00 a.m. on 11-5-1998. I have met a number of individuals, associations and groups of students, public representatives etc. I have also visited some of the centres where the written examinations were conducted. The enquiry commenced with a detailed review of the steps taken by the district administration to conduct the examinations in proper and fair manner. In Cuddapah, out of 9,451 candidates, who applied, 6755 have appeared for examination for which district administration has identified 32 centres. There were complaints of mass-copying in six centres. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the performance levels was taken up for the six centres, in particular. Some of the steps taken by the district administration to ensure proper conduct of examination are as follows:

27. A mention has to be made with regard to Cuddapah district covered by OA No.3366 of 1998 relating to WP Nos.22039 and 22809 of 1998. In view of the finding of the Tribunal mentioned above in OA Nos. 3419 and 3674 of 1998, no different consideration can arise in the case of Cuddapah district and as such, directions in OA No.3366 of 1998 to constitute a committee to enquire into the allegations said to have been committed in some centres of Cuddapah district are baseless and unsustainable. The Tribunal was incorrect in applying two standards, one for Cuddapah and another for other districts and more so, when there is only one enquiry conducted with regard to Cuddapah as compared to no enquiry conducted in any of other 22 districts and the said enquiry report being in consonance with the approach of the Tribunal mentioned above in OA Nos.3419 and 3674 of 1998. Further, the Tribunal, which is a judicial body and which has to resolve the disputes exercising the judicial power of the State, "was not entitled to abdicate its functions and leave the decision to the executive after making enquiry. Such action is impermissible under law.