O R D E R vs Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma
2021 Latest Caselaw 3669 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU


                         W.P.No.8317 of 2021
O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

"to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction declaring the Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent No.AII(1)- 3202236/2019 dt.28.12.2020 promoting the 3rd Respondent to the post of Deputy Statistical Officer being his junior as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.22184/2020, dt. 26.11.2020 etc., with a consequential directions to the 2nd Respondent to promote him to the above post with effect from 28.12.2020 with all consequential monetary benefits etc.,.."

As learned counsel for the petitioner said he does not

wish to file a rejoinder, the matter was taken up for hearing.

This Court has heard Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for

services-II.

Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner

states that the action of the second respondent in promoting

the third respondent, who is his junior to a post of Deputy

Statistical Officer is illegal, arbitrary etc. The facts are not in

dispute according to the learned counsel. It is admitted that

the petitioner has to pass the A.P.Public Service Commission

(APPSC) Accounts Test for Sub-ordinate Officers part-I.

Petitioner applied for the same and the test was also held on

22.11.2020. However, the formal results were not declared.

The key to the test was released by the APPSC on 03.12.2020.

Immediately, he submitted a representation dated 08.12.2020

bringing it to the notice of the respondents that he had

passed the above test and therefore, he wants his name to be

included in the final seniority list. Learned counsel for the

petitioner argues that the key to the test was released by the

APPSC in the official website on 03.12.2020. Relying on the

same, the petitioner submitted his objections to the

provisional seniority list. Therefore, he contends that the

respondents should have considered the same and promoted

the petitioner since he is admittedly a senior.

He also submits that he need not take the exam as he is

above 45 years of age. He also argues that in W.P.No.22184

of 2020, the learned single Judge of this Court passed orders

on 26.11.2020 directing the respondents to consider the

objections dated 08.12.2020. He points out that even though

the learned single Judge directed the respondents to consider

the objections properly, they have passed the impugned order

dated 28.12.2020 holding that the he is not eligible for

promotion and the key that is furnished by the petitioner is

not an authentic publication for the purpose of promotion.

Learned counsel argues that in the final seniority list dated

18.12.2020, the case of the petitioner is not considered for

promotion and it is mentioned that "results are awaited".

Learned counsel therefore argues that the entire action taken

by the respondents is contrary to law; that the petitioner had

applied for the exam, had passed in the exam, had submitted

the key published from the official website and that ignoring

of the same by the respondents and insisting on the official

website is contrary to law.

In reply to this, learned Government Pleader for Service-

II argues in line with the counter affidavit filed. According to

them, an objection to the seniority list is not filed by the

petitioner. On the other hand, he approached the High Court

and secured an order. It is also argued that for the post of

Statistical Assistant by promotion, a candidate must have

passed (a) Agricultural Departmental Test (b) and Accounts

Test for Sub-ordinate Officers Part-I. This is as per Rule 3 of

the A.P. Agricultural Sub-ordinate Service Rules. The learned

Government Pleader argues that the language used in this

Rule is mandatory and for securing promotion, the petitioner

must have passed the examination by the date, the seniority

list was prepared. It is also mentioned that G.O.Ms.No.591

dated 20.11.2021 clearly stipulates that the result of the

departmental test published in the website will be considered

as an authentic publication in addition to the A.P.Gazette. It

is mentioned that the petitioner could not produce any such

proof also. Relying upon G.O.Ms.No.225, it is argued that

there is no exemption from passing the test for the second

promotion and that the exemption would only apply for

people above 45 years, if it is their first promotion. Therefore,

the State justifies its action.

This Court after hearing both the learned counsel

notices that there is no much dispute in the facts. The

qualification prescribed are clear for promotion and in clause

(b), it is stipulated that the candidate must have passed the

Accounts Test for Sub-ordinate Officers Part-I.

In the case on hand, by the date the impugned orders

were issued, the petitioner could not produce authentic proof

that he had in fact passed the examination. The contention

of the petitioner is that he has submitted the key to the

APPSC test which is held on 22.11.2020. The key is put up

by the APPSC and other such organizations to enable the

participants in exams to assess their performance and to

bring out any errors etc., in evaluation/correction. It cannot

be true as an authentic proof that the applicant has cleared

the exam. It is only after the examination is finally evaluated

and normal pass certificate or declaration of result is issued,

it can be said that the applicant had passed the examination.

As pointed out by the respondents, the Enquiry Response

Sheet and the key produced by the petitioner cannot be

treated as authentic publication of the result and the final

key may vary depending upon the objections received.

Circumstances are there where the APPSC corrected its

answers which were published in the key. There are reported

judgments of this also.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the

respondents are right in insisting upon the proof of an

authentic declaration from the petitioner of his result. While

it is a fact that the third respondent is junior to the petitioner

still the fact remains that the third respondent has cleared

the Accounts test for Sub-ordinate Officers on 17.12.2011,

which was almost nine years before the petitioner's attempt to

clear the test.

In that view of the matter, since the qualifications

prescribed are meant to be adhered to and cannot be

overlooked, this Court has to uphold the interpretation placed

by the respondents. This Court also does not find any clear

allegations of proof of mala fides also.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to

costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall

stand dismissed.

___________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 22.09.2021 KLP