The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs M.Giri Siva Sadgurudu,
2021 Latest Caselaw 643 AP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                         &
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                         WRIT APPEAL No.27 of 2021

                     (Taken up through video conferencing)

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary,
School Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Guntur District, A.P. and others.

                                                            .. Appellants.
        Versus

M. Giri Siva Sadgurudu, S/o Mangali Maddaiah,
R/o H.No.0-101, Mangali Veedhi, Veldurthi,
Kurnool District.

                                                           ..Respondent.

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, Government Pleader representing Additional Advocate General

Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Kambhampati Ramesh Babu

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 05.02.2021

per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 29.02.2020

passed by this Court in W.P.No.45455 of 2018.

2. The writ petitioner had appeared for written test conducted on

10.05.2012 for Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) and on 11.05.2012 for

Post-Graduate Teachers (PGT) and the results were declared on

07.10.2012. The final selection lists were displayed on 23.01.2015 and

26.04.2015. The writ petitioner belongs to BC-A category and he had

HCJ & CPK, J W.A.No.27 OF 2021

appeared for PGT-Telugu in Zone-IV for the written examination and was

placed in rank 146.

3. Aggrieved by the final lists, some candidates approached this Court

by filing W.P.No.9873 of 2015 and batch, wherein this Court directed the

respondents to redraw the provisional list in terms of Para 11(f) of

G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 04.04.2013.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is that in the provisional list that was

redrawn, his name finds place, but he was not given appointment order on

the ground that he was not a party to W.P.No.9873 of 2015 and batch.

5. At paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the order under appeal, the learned

single Judge noted as follows:

"5. The respondents' counsel does not deny the fact

that the petitioner was shown in the redraw merit list and that

he is eligible for being appointed as PGT (Telugu).

6. The petitioner need not be a party to the writ

petition, which is filed by the other candidates. When the

direction in the writ petition is to redraw the list and when the

petitioner's name finds place in the redrawn list, he would

automatically be entitled for being appointed as PGT

(Telugu)."

Accordingly, the respondents were directed to appoint the writ petitioner for

the post of PGT (Telugu) forthwith.

6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submits

that the writ petitioner did not approach this Court making a grievance

about the final list and the appellants did not rightly consider his case for

HCJ & CPK, J W.A.No.27 OF 2021

appointment. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner could not have

been even otherwise appointed because all the vacancies were filled up.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to

paragraph No.9 of the counter-affidavit filed by the appellants in the writ

petition.

7. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to take note of G.O.Ms.No.25,

dated 04.04.2013. It is relevant to extract paragraph No.11 therein as

under:

"11. Verification of certificates:

a) The Additional Director, Model Schools shall prepare with the

approval of the Selection Committee a provisional list to the

extent of vacancies notified, for each category of post notified,

on the basis of the merit list and publish the same on the notice

boards of the offices of the District Collector and District

Educational Officer and also on the designated website, along

with the date, time and venue fixed for verification of

certificates. The Additional Director, Model Schools shall also

issue a press note in the news papers for wide publicity in this

regard.

b) The Committees as constituted in the Annexure-I and

Annexure-II to these guidelines shall conduct the verification of

original certificates of the candidates for the posts of Principal

and the Posts of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) and Trained

Graduate Teacher (TGT), respectively, as per the schedule and

at the venues specified by the Selection Committee.

HCJ & CPK, J W.A.No.27 OF 2021

c) As the processing of applications is made online so far, the

process of verification of certificates of candidates included in

provisional list may, in certain cases, also result in,

i. Failure of the candidate to attend for verification of

certificates.

ii. Failure of the candidate to produce the original

certificate/s relevant to his/her eligibility and

selection.

iii. Inclusion of a candidate in the provisional list of more

than one category.

d) As regards c(i) above, the Additional Director, Model Schools

shall send a personal intimation to the address furnished by the

candidate, to attend along with all relevant original certificates

on the date fixed for the said purpose, as a final chance.

e) In case the candidate fails to attend even on the date so fixed,

he/she shall forfeit his/her right to be considered for selection.

f) In the event of c(ii) & c(iii) and (d) above, the provisional list

shall be redrawn by the Selection Committee drawing next

candidate/s from the merit list to the extent necessary,

however, subject to the condition that the number of

candidates included shall not be more than the number of

vacancies notified for that particular category. In so far as the

candidate covered by c(iii) above, this exercise shall be done

only after obtaining the option of such candidate at the time of

verification of certificates itself."

HCJ & CPK, J W.A.No.27 OF 2021

8. Perusal of the above goes to show that in terms of paragraph No.11

(f), provisional list shall be redrawn by the Selection Committee drawing

next candidate/s from the merit list to the extent necessary. However, the

same is subject to the condition that the number of candidates included

shall not be more than the number of vacancies notified for that particular

category.

9. Paragraph No.9 of the counter-affidavit filed by the appellants in the

writ petition is quoted hereunder:

"9. In reply to para no.8 & 12, it is humbly submitted

that the petitioner herein belong has applied for the post of

TGT-Hindi under BC-B in Zone-IV, and has secured 66.07

marks and Rank 154. It is respectfully submitted that, this

respondents has already re-drawn the selection lists in

obedience of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated

12.9.2016. The Hon'ble High Court therein clearly mentioned

to re-draw the selection list and consider the case of the

petitioners therein for appointment if they come in the final

selection list. This itself shows that, selection is limited to the

petitioners in the WP and batch only but not for those

candidates who have not approached the Hon'ble High Court.

In view of the same, the representations submitted by the

petitioner have not been considered."

10. Perusal of the above paragraph goes to show that while the writ

petitioner was seeking appointment in the post of PGT (Telugu) in Zone IV,

the averments are made in connection with the post of TGT-Hindi, which

has no relevance. Even then it is not the case of the appellants that merit

HCJ & CPK, J W.A.No.27 OF 2021

position of the writ petitioner did not warrant appointment in particular

category of post to which the writ petitioner had applied. Appellants' only

contention is that authorities had to confine their consideration only to the

candidates, who had approached this Court. The reasoning is fallacious. It

cannot be countenanced that if in the redrawn list there are more

meritorious candidates above the candidates who had approached the

Court earlier, they have to be ignored. Redrawn list is based on merit and

some petitioners in the earlier round of litigation may not be entitled to get

appointment on the basis of their position in the merit list. It was

necessary for the authorities to adhere to the redrawn merit list. As rightly

held by the learned single Judge that in the facts and circumstances of the

case, merely because the writ petitioner was not a party to the earlier

round of litigation, it cannot held that he is not entitled to appointment.

11. In view of the above discussion, we find no ground to interfere with

the order of the learned single Judge.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                             C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

                                                                                Nn

                                                       HCJ & CPK, J
                                                 W.A.No.27 OF 2021

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.27 of 2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Dt: 05.02.2021

Nn