Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, vs G. Chinnappa Reddy, on 13 July, 2022

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

                                    AND

              THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

                WRIT PETITION No.15437 OF 2013

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)

      This    Writ    Petition,    filed   under   Article    226    of   the

Constitution of India, calls in question the order, dated

28.06.2011,      passed      by    the     A.P.Administrative       Tribunal

(hereinafter called 'Tribunal') in O.A.No.12647 of 2009.


2.    Respondents, in the aforesaid Original Application, are the

petitioners in the present Writ Petition. The State Government

issued DSC notification, 2003, inviting applications for filling

up the posts of School Assistants. Applicant-respondent herein

also applied for School Assistant (English) post. The State

Government brought amendments to the A.P.Direct

Recruitment for the post of Teachers (Scheme of Selection)

Rules, 2000 (for brevity, 'the Rules') and notified the same vide

G.O.Ms.No.136 Education (Services-VI-3) Department, dated

13.11.2003. As per the amendment to Rule 3 (1) (b) of the

Rules, the educational qualifications required for the post of

School Assistant (English) being a Bachelor's Degree with

English as a main subject or one of the three equal optional

subjects or a Post Graduate Degree in English and a

B.Ed.degree with English as a Methodology subject. Thereafter,

the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.556 Education (SE-SER.VII)

Department, dated 04.10.2005, permitting the Director of

School Education to appoint the candidates having Bachelor's AVSS,J & VS,J W.P.No.15437 of 2013

degree and B.Ed. degree and also those acquired single subject

certificate with four papers in the relevant subject at Bachelor's

degree level from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad

for the posts of School Assistants (Language) in the relevant

subject for DSC-2003 in relaxation to G.O.Ms.No.136

Education (SE-SER-VI) Department, dated 13.11.2003, subject

to certain conditions stipulated therein. Questioning

G.O.Rt.No.556, dated 04.10.2005, certain candidates filed

O.A.No.6373 of 2005 before the Tribunal and the petitioner

herein also filed O.A.No.1679 of 2006 against the said

Governmental Order. On 18.09.2006 O.A.No.6373 of 2005 was

dismissed by the Tribunal and the applicants in O.A.No.6373 of

2005, who are 29 in number, approached the composite High

Court of A.P. by filing W.P.20426 of 2006. Pending the said Writ

Petition, the State Government issued Memo No.2368/

Ser.VI/2005, dated 20.01.2009, permitting the Director of

School Education, Hyderabad to appoint the petitioners (who

are 29 in number) in W.P.No.20426 of 2006 as School

Assistants (English) in the existing vacancies in their respective

Districts subject to having other eligibility conditions as per the

Rules in force.

3. O.A.No.1679 of 2006, filed by the applicant-respondent

herein, came to be disposed of by the Tribunal vide order, dated

02.12.2009, while observing that it would be appropriate for

the applicant to file a fresh Original Application stating all the

facts, including the Government Memo, dated 20.01.2009, and

the proceedings, dated 28.01.2009. Thereafter, applicant-

AVSS,J & VS,J W.P.No.15437 of 2013

respondent herein filed O.A.No.12647 of 2009, questioning the

action of the respondents in not considering his case for

appointment to the post of School Assistant (English) along with

other similarly situated DSC-2003 candidates as per the orders

issued by the Government vide Memo No.2368/SER.VI/2005,

dated 20.01.2009. On 18.12.2009, the Tribunal, in

O.A.No.12647 of 2009, passed an interim order, directing the

respondents therein to consider the case of the applicant for

appointment to the post of School Assistant (English) in the

existing vacancies in Guntur District as has been done in

respect of similarly situated candidates vide proceedings in

Rc.No.1966/Rc-3/2005, dated 28.01.2009, and the

Government Memo No.2368/SE.VI/2005, dated 20.01.2009.

The State Government, in pursuance of the aforesaid orders

passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.12647/2009, dated

18.12.2009, passed an order vide proceedings in

Rc.No.1996/Rc-3/2005, dated 01.02.2010, rejecting the claim

of the applicant/respondent herein.

4. Applicant-respondent herein, assailing the order of

rejection, dated 01.02.2010, filed O.A.No.1568 of 2010. The

Tribunal, by way of a common order, dated 28.06.2011,

disposed of the Original Application Nos.12647 of 2009 and

1568 of 2010 with a direction to the respondents therein to

examine the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of

School Assistant (English) in DSC-2003 by taking into

consideration the marks obtained by him and appointments

made to the writ petitioners in W.P.No.20426 of 2006 & batch AVSS,J & VS,J W.P.No.15437 of 2013

and to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

5. In the above background, questioning the validity and the

legal sustainability of the order, dated 28.06.2011, passed in

O.A.No.12647 of 2009, the present Writ Petition came to be

instituted.

6. A counter-affidavit, accompanied by vacate stay

application, has been filed by the applicant-respondent herein.

It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the

benefit given to the 29 candidates cannot be extended to the

applicant-respondent herein as the applicant-respondent herein

was not a party to the said W.P.No.20426 of 2006. It is further

submitted that so many DSCs have taken place subsequent to

DSC-2003 and, at this length of time, the case of the applicant-

respondent herein cannot be considered. It is further submitted

that there is absolutely no proof that the applicant-respondent

herein is more meritorious than the petitioners in the said Writ

Petition.

7. It is further submitted that, on the ground of laches, the

request of the petitioners herein is liable for rejection. In

support of his submissions, learned Government Pleader placed

reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of

Uttar Pradesh and others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and

others1.

(2015) 1 SCC 347 AVSS,J & VS,J W.P.No.15437 of 2013

8. On the contrary, Sri Kautilya, learned counsel for the

applicant-respondent herein, contends that the non-

consideration of the case of the respondent herein for

appointment, while considering 29 other similarly situated

individuals, is highly discriminatory, arbitrary and

unreasonable. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

that there is absolutely no laches on the part of the applicant-

respondent herein. It is further submitted that the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court, sought to be relied upon by the learned

Government Pleader, would not render any assistance to the

case of the respondent.

9. In the above background, now the issue that emerges for

consideration of this Court, in the present Writ Petition, is:

"whether the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned

in the present Writ Petition, is sustainable and tenable and

whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India?".

10. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the factum

of the respondent-applicant, applying for the post of School

Assistant (English) in response to the DSC, 2003 notification

issued by the State Government. Equally, filing of O.A.No.1679

of 2006 by the applicant, questioning G.O.Rt.No.556 Education

(SE-SER.VII), dated 04.10.2005, is not in controversy. But

O.A.No.6375 of 2005, filed by other 29 applicants, came up first

before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order, dated

18.09.2006, dismissed the said Original Application and AVSS,J & VS,J W.P.No.15437 of 2013

against which the said persons filed W.P.No.20426 of 2006

before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh and,

pending W.P.No.20426 of 2006, State Government, issued

Memo No.2368/Ser.VI/2005, dated 20.01.2009, permitting the

Director of School Education to appoint the petitioners in the

said Writ Petition. Vide orders, dated 20.02.2009, Division

Bench of the composite High Court dismissed W.P.No.20426 of

2006 as infructuous by taking into consideration the orders of

the State Government issued vide Memo, dated 20.01.2009.

11. Admittedly, O.A.No.1679 of 2006, filed by the applicant-

respondent herein, came up for hearing before the Tribunal on

20.01.2009 and when the above facts, including issuance of

Memo, dated 20.01.2009 were brought to the notice of the

Tribunal, the Tribunal disposed of O.A.No.1679 of 2006 vide

order, dated 02.12.2009, while observing that it would be

appropriate for the applicant to file a fresh Original Application

stating all the facts, including issuance of Memo, dated

20.01.2009 by the Government.

12. It is not in dispute that immediately thereafter, applicant-

respondent herein filed O.A.No.12647 of 2009 before the

Tribunal, seeking the following relief:

"to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the applicant for appointment to the post of School Assistant (English), along with similarly situated DSC-2003 candidates, as per the orders issued by the Govt.vide Memo No.2368/SER.VI/2005, dated 20.01.2009, as arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and AVSS,J & VS,J W.P.No.15437 of 2013

consequently direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of School Assistant (English) in the existing vacancies in Guntur District, as has been done in respect of similarly situated DSC-2003 candidates vide proceedings Rc.No.1996/RC- 3/2005, dated 28.01.2009, issued by the second respondent and the Govt.Memo No.2368/SER. VI/2005, dated 20.01.2009, and with all other consequential benefits, including notional seniority and other benefits, monetary or otherwise and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

The Tribunal, on 18.12.2009, passed an interim order in

O.A.No.12647 of 2009 which reads as follows:

"Pending further orders, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of School Assistant (English) in the existing vacancy in Guntur District, as has been done in respect of similarly situated candidates, vide proceedings Rc.No.1966/RC-

3/2005, dated 28.01.2009 and Govt.Memo No.2368/SER.VI/2005, dated 20.02.2009".

13. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order, dated

18.12.2009, the Commissioner and Director of School

Education, A.P., vide Rc.No.1996/RC-3/2005, dated

01.02.2010, rejected the request of the applicant and the

operative portion of the said order is as follows:

"In the above circumstances, the applicant- Sri G.Chinnapa Reddy is informed that the Government Pleader for Services, Andhra Pradesh High Court has expressed an opinion that the Hon'ble High Court has observed that granting relaxation of qualifications in G.O.No.556, dated 04.10.2005 is bad and requested the department to take a decision for considering the petitioners in AVSS,J & VS,J W.P.No.15437 of 2013

the Writ Petitions only and it will not be precedent to other cases. Accordingly, as per the observations of the Hon'ble High Court, the cases of writ petitioners only are considered and no other case will be considered.