IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.237 of 2021
(Through Video-Conferencing)
The Vice Chairman and Managing Director,
A.P. State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd.,Vijayawada,
Krishna District ... Appellant
Versus
GudikandulaVenkata Rao, S/o.G.Gopalam, aged about
54 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H No.6119,
Buddaiahgari Street, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, and others ... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Ms.PadmavathiPadnavis
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr.S.M.Subhani
Counsel for respondent Nos.2& 3 : G.P. for Services - II
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt:02.07.2021
(Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Ms.Padmavathi Padnavis, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Hemachandra - learned standing counsel for the appellant.
2. Also heard Mr.S.M.Subhani, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms.J.Sumathi, learned Government Pleader for Services - II, for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.25800 of 2013, holding as follows:
"10. In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Respondents without taking into consideration of the concession of 5 years age given to B.C. candidates erroneously disqualified the petitioner for selection process and accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner is qualified as on the date of the notification with regard to his age in the light of the age concession of 5 years provided in G.O.Ms.No.23, Backward Classes Welfare (C2) Department, dated 31-05-2001 and the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-II on the ground HCJ & NJS,J 2 W.A.No.237 of 2021 that the petitioner exceeds the age limit and he was found disqualified is unjustified and against to the G.O.Ms.No.23, Backward Classes Welfare (C2) Department, dated 31-05-2001 and G.O.Ms.No.9, Backward Classes Welfare (C2) Department, dated 15-05-2011.
11. For the above mentioned reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-II in pursuance of the Notification dated 16-08-2010 within a period of Four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There is no order as to costs."
4. The appellant had issued a Notification for General Recruitment dated 16.08.2010 and the writ petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Grade-II for which a total of 62 posts were notified. The writ petitioner belongs to BC-A category and for the post of Assistant Grade-II, three posts for General and two posts for Women were earmarked to be filled up as per roster in respect of the category to which the writ petitioner belongs.
5. The Notification dated 16.08.2010 indicated that age limit is 39 years for all those posts, but there is relaxation of five years for candidates belonging to S.C. and S.T. categories.
6. The writ petitioner appeared in the examination, but he was not called for the interview. In such circumstances, to ascertain the reason as to why he was not called for the interview, he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act") on 26.06.2011 and by letter dated 13.05.2013, the respondents informed the writ petitioner that the age as on 01.07.2010 should be less than 39 years and as the writ petitioner had exceeded the age, he was found to be disqualified. It is in the aforesaid situation, the writ petitioner approached this Court by making a prayer that his case should be considered for the post of Assistant Grade-II in pursuance of the notification dated 16.08.2010 by relaxing the age as per G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 17.05.2011.
HCJ & NJS,J 3 W.A.No.237 of 2021
7. G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 31.05.2001 is brought on record by the appellant by filing I.A.No.2 of 2021 in terms of the directions passed by this Court.
8. A perusal of the said G.O. goes to show that reservation of seats in educational institutions and reservations in services were extended for another ten years with effect from 01.06.2001 in respect of Backward Classes. The relaxation given was age concession of 5 years for the aforesaid purpose. By G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 17.05.2011, age relaxation granted under G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 31.05.2011 was extended for a further period of ten years with effect from 01.06.2011.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the Notification dated 16.08.2010, relaxation of age was allowed only in respect of S.C. and S.T. category candidates and when the writ petitioner admittedly does not belong to the aforesaid categories, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be interfered with, as the writ petitioner had not assailed the aforesaid condition incorporated in the Notification dated 16.08.2010.
10. It is not the contention advanced by the appellant that the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 31.05.2001 or G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 17.05.2011 is not applicable to the writ petitioner. That being the position, merely because the writ petitioner had not assailed the condition of relaxation allowing reservation only to S.C. and S.T. category candidates, excluding other categories covered by G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 31.05.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 17.05.2011, it will not disentitle the writ petitioner to claim relaxation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 31.05.2001 and/or G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 17.05.2011. When the aforesaid G.Os. were applicable in respect of the appellant-Corporation, it defies any rationale or logic as to why benefit of such relaxation was not given to those, who, otherwise are entitled to grant of relaxation in terms of the aforesaid G.Os.
11. In the light of what we have discussed above, we see no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J MRR