Vinukonda Chandra Kumari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3176 AP

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

     HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                &
             HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                      WRIT PETITION No.18118 of 2021
                        (Through Video-Conferencing)

Vinukonda Chandra Kumari, W/o. Ch. V. Ramana,
Aged about 48 years, R/o. Opp. Court Building,
Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P.                                      ... Petitioner

                                    Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary,
Law Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Andhra
Pradesh, and others                                             ... Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Narra Srinivasa Rao

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. N. Aswartha Narayana, G.P. for Services - I

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, Standing Counsel

ORAL ORDER

Dt:25.08.2021

(Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr. N. Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services - I, for

respondent No.1 and Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for

respondent Nos.2 & 3.

2. Notification No.9/2020-RC, dated 20.07.2021 (for short "the

Notification") was issued by the Registrar (Recruitment), High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Civil Judge

(Junior Division).

3. The petitioner is an aspiring applicant by way of recruitment by transfer.

The petitioner is presently working as an Assistant Public Prosecutor in the

Court of the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. The Notification

provided that an applicant for recruitment by transfer shall not have completed

the age of 48 years on the first day of the month in which the Notification

inviting applications for such appointment is published in the newspapers, i.e.

20.07.2021. In terms of the aforesaid norms, regarding age limit, the

petitioner is over-aged by 22 days.

4. Mr. Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has

submitted that the petitioner earlier responded to a Notification dated

03.12.2020 whereby also, applications were invited for appointment to the

post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), which came to be challenged in a number

of writ petitions, one of them being W.P.No.7934 of 2021. The said

Notification was set aside by this Court by a judgment and order dated

04.03.2021 passed in W.P.No.7934 of 2021 and batch. He draws the

attention of the Court to paragraphs 33 and 34 of the aforesaid judgment and

order, which read as under:

"33. All the candidates who have appeared for the Screening Test

held on 21.02.2021 in pursuance of the Notification dated

03.12.2020 would be entitled to appear in the fresh recruitment

process on the basis of their application submitted earlier.

34. We also make it clear that if any of the candidates who had

appeared in the Screening Test held on 21.02.2021 and the writ

petitioners become overaged in the meantime, their age shall be

deemed to have been relaxed to enable them to take part in the

fresh recruitment process that would be initiated through

Notification to be issued on the basis of this order."

5. It is submitted by Mr. Narra Srinivasa Rao that the benefit as extended

to the candidates who had taken the screening test should be extended to the

petitioner also, though she could not take the screening test held on

21.02.2021 in pursuance of the Notification dated 03.12.2020, as she had

submitted application pursuant to the Notification dated 03.12.2020 and her

age should be deemed to have been relaxed in terms of paragraph 34 of the

aforesaid judgment and order. It is submitted that the petitioner could not

appear in the screening test as she was suffering from fever and headache.

Relying on paragraph 15 of the affidavit in support of the petition, it is also

contended that age of the petitioner as on 01.12.2020 may be reckoned

instead of 01.07.2021.

6. The submissions advanced by Mr. Narra Srinivasa Rao are without any

merit. Admittedly, the petitioner had not taken the screening test held on

21.02.2021 in pursuance of the Notification dated 03.12.2020. This Court

protected the interests of all those candidates who had appeared in the

screening test as aforesaid by providing that they would be entitled to appear

in the fresh recruitment process on the basis of their applications submitted

earlier and also providing that if any of the candidates who had appeared in

the screening test held on 21.02.2021 had become over-aged in the

meantime, their age shall be deemed to have been relaxed to enable them to

take part in the fresh recruitment process.

7. In view of the above order, the petitioner having not taken part in the

screening test for whatever reasons cannot be granted the benefit of age

relaxation at par with those candidates who had taken the screening test. The

other contention advanced that age of the petitioner as on 01.12.2020 should

be reckoned has no basis whatsoever, as the date 01.12.2020 was relatable

to the earlier Notification that was issued on 03.12.2020, which was quashed

by this Court in W.P.No.7934 of 2021 and batch.

8. In that view of the matter, writ petition is devoid of any merit and,

accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                                NINALA JAYASURYA, J
MRR