The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
and
The Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy
Writ Appeal No.441 of 2021
Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present Writ Appeal is arising out of Order
dated 19.07.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge, in
W.P.No.2032 of 2019.
2. The facts of the case reveal that an advertisement was
issued on 16.02.2018, inviting applications for Junior Lineman
and the appellant/writ petitioner submitted his application and
appeared in the written examination, which was held on
08.04.2018. Results were declared on 25.05.2018 and as per the
notification, the next level of examination was pole climbing test
and the guidelines were also framed for the purpose of pole
climbing test scheduled on 21.07.2018. Clauses (a) and (b) are
reproduced as under:
"a. The selection committee have to strictly monitor
pole climbing process of the candidates duly providing
all required facilities at the place of test and see that no
discrepancies are taken place. Video recording of the
pole climbing test is to be arranged and candidates are
to be awarded points by the each member of the
committee separately and to decide whether he is
qualified or not.
b. After completion of pole climbing test of all eligible
candidates, the disqualified candidates in pole climbing
2
test are to be eliminated from the provisional selection
list and revised list to be prepared with further eligible
candidates duly fixing already selected and qualified
candidates in upward slots of roster list and new
comers are to be called for pole climbing test. This
process is to be carry out until all allotted posts are
filled with qualified and eligible candidates in the
circle."
3. The facts further reveal that a live demonstration was also
given to all candidates in respect of pole climbing test and the
candidates were asked to climb the pole, touch the top and get
down without any slip.
4. The petitioner did participate in the pole climbing test.
However, he slipped while getting down the pole. His
contention is that because of the helmet, which he was putting
on, he slipped while getting down. The learned Single Judge has
dismissed the Writ Petition. Paragraph 8 of the order passed by
the learned Single Judge reads as under:
8. This Court, having considered the rival
submissions made by learned counsel for respective
parties, is of the considered view that the respondents
have filed a counter making abundantly clear that the case of the petitioner was referred to the Committee to examine the petitioner's performance in the Pole Climbing Test and the Committee opined that the petitioner has failed in the pole climbing test. The petitioner has also not filed any reply affidavit denying the averments made in the counter affidavit. The grievance of the petitioner is that his case was not 3 referred to the Committee for examining his performance in the Pole Climbing Test. But, from the counter averments, it is evident that the case of the petitioner was referred to the Committee for examining the performance of the petitioner. Therefore, when the Committee has examined and opined that the petitioner has not cleared the Pole Climbing Test, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter and the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed."
5. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the counter filed by the respondents.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the helmet was given rightly to the candidates and they were also tied with a rope tightly, in order to avoid any casualty. All the candidates were subjected to same process along with the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that in isolation, he was the only one person on that particular day, who was given a helmet. Resultantly, as the petitioner is not able to clear the pole climbing test, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Otherwise also, the grievance of the petitioner was looked into by the Committee constituted in this regard. The Committee, after verifying the video recording of the entire pole climbing test, has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner's 4 candidature was rightly rejected and therefore, no case is made out in the matter.
8. In view of the above, admission is declined.
9. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Consequently, Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, stand dismissed.
_______________________ Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ ____________________ A. Rajasheker Reddy, J Date:10.11.2021 lur