HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 27633 OF 2011
ORDER:
Petitioner is before this Court complaining that the 2nd respondent did not follow the procedure for appointment to the post of Trainee Sub-Engineer (Mechanical), V Zone under BC-C category covered under the notification dated 03.01.2011 of the 1st respondent notifying the appointment of Trainee Sub- Engineer for Engineering Diploma Holders in Electrical, Mechanical, Electronics & Civil for the total number of post 350 as illegal and unjust.
2. Petitioner's case is that he worked with Lloyd Projects Pvt. Limited which is the Sub-contractor with K.T.P.S., V Phase, Paloncha, Khammam District from 01.07.1996 to 31.07.1996 and he is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering. Pursuant to the impugned notification, he applied for the post of Trainee Sub-Engineer (Mechanical) in V-Zone under BC-C category and secured 51.28% in the written examination and stood topper in V-Zone. However, without following the procedure, Respondents 1 and 2 appointed the 3rd respondent who secured 46.53% from Zone V and the 4th 2 respondent who belongs to Krishna District which fell under Zone-II, hence, he is a non-local candidate in the composite Andhra Pradesh.
3. This Court while issuing notice before admission granted interim direction on 30.09.2011 which reads as under:
" Status quo obtaining as on today as regards filling up of the vacancies of Trainee Sub-Engineers (Mechanical Branch) reserved for BC-C category in Zone-V shall be maintained until further orders".
The said order is still subsisting.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed by Respondents 1 and 2, selection procedure for the post of Trainee Sub-Engineers was prescribed, according to which written test would be conducted for maximum 100 marks and marks secured in the said test would be restricted to 50 and weightage of 30 was meant for overall marks obtained in the qualifying diploma examination (marks secured in Diploma X 30 / total marks in diploma). Similarly weightage up to 10 marks was meant for passing the qualifying examination of diploma up to the date of notification @ 2 marks for each completed year of passing and further service weightage of ten marks for candidates who worked as contract labour for more than six months and five marks for those who worked for less than six months in the power generating stations under the respondent Corporation. 3 Thereafter, petitioner attended the written examination on 27.02.2011 and after verifying the testimonials, it was found that petitioner secured 19 marks in the written test, 10 weightage marks against year of passing diploma and 17.14 weightage marks against marks secured in diploma. The petitioner's claim that he is entitled for weightage marks for experience at 5 as a contractual employee turned out to be false. Candidates claiming experience in GENCO have to submit gate pass / annual slip of EPF i.e. minimum one gate pass and the gate pass produced for the period from 01.07.1996 to 31.07.1996 is reported to be fabricated and the security at KTPS, V Stage, Paloncha denied issuing any such gate pass to petitioner. Thus, petitioner secured a total of only 46.14 marks, whereas the 3rd respondent secured a total of 46.53 (written test 18.5 + weightage of 6 marks in respect of year of passing diploma + 22.03 marks in diploma) and got selected under local category and the 4th respondent secured a total of 56 marks (written test 24.50 + weightage of 10 marks in respect of year of passing the diploma + weightage marks of 21.50 in diploma) and got selected under non-local category. It is stated that pursuant to the interim order dated 30.09.2011, the appointment order of the 3rd respondent was kept in abeyance. 4 Further, letter dated 03.07.2012 was also issued considering his representation dated NIL stating that petitioner is not entitled for weightage marks for experience as he submitted xerox copy of gate pass and not put-forth any relevant proof / evidence and the validity of experience etc. against his claim. Again another letter dated 30.12.20011 was issued stating that reply should reach on or before 13.01.2012, but the same was not complied with by the petitioner. It is, ultimately, stated that claim of petitioner for award of weightage marks was rightly rejected and Writ Petition is thus misconceived and is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
5. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit wherein he has clearly stated that he was considered for appointment by the respondent- corporation after verification of his testimonials.
6. Petitioner filed the reply-affidavit stating that the gate pass was issued by the Security Officer and not only the signature of Security Officer but also that of Assistant Executive Engineer is there. It is his grievance that though he was selected in 2011, after lapse of seven years, still, he is waiting for employment. Several times, he approached the officials 5 under the RTI Act, 2005 for getting certain information, but he was not provided with any information.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud. He contends that selection process has to be prescribed in advance. Rules of game cannot be changed afterwards and minimum qualifying marks for interview prescribed after the interviews were over, is not permissible. In support of the same, he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1
7. Heard Ms V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for GENCO.
8. The impugned notification which was shown at pages 10 to 19 of the writ papers clearly prescribes the subject note which reads as under:
" Note: Candidates claiming experience in APGENCO have to submit gate pass / annual account slip of EPF i.e. minimum one gate pass for the candidates who are claiming as contract labour to the proof of working for less than 6 months or PF membership and minimum of seven gate passes or annual accounts slip of EPF for the candidates claiming who have worked as contract labour for more than 6 months."
At the time of verifying the testimonials of petitioner, it was found that gate pass for the period from 01.07.1996 to 31.07.1996 which was referred to the station-wise committee 1 (2008) 3 SCC 512 6 constituted vide G.O.O.No. 79/CGM(Adm)2011, dated 31.05.2011 to find out the genuinty of claim, was reported as 'the gate pass enclosed not issued by security and it is fabricated', hence, his claim for experience for weightage was not considered and awarded '0' marks, thus total marks which were awarded prior to verifying the documents was reduced from 51.28 to 46.14. Hence, the judgment relied on by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
9. Further, Respondents 1 and 2 addressed a letter dated 03.07.2012 duly considering the petitioner's representation dated 'NIL'. They clarified that he is not entitled for weightage marks for the purported experience which he has submitted in the form of fake gate pass and also in the absence of any relevant proof or evidence in support of his claim for weightage of 5 marks that he is entitled for. The said letter remained unchallenged by petitioner. Moreover, there is no rebuttal from petitioner to the counter of Respondents 1 and 2 that he had produced fake and fabricated gate pass to claim 5 weightage marks. From this, it is apparent that petitioner has made a blatant attempt to hoodwink Respondents 1 and 2 and dishonestly approached this Court with unclean hands by 7 challenging the selection procedure. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Since the order of status quo is still in subsistence, pursuant to which, appointment of the 3rd respondent was kept in abeyance, the said order is vacated. No costs.
11. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 19th October 2023 ksld