Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N. Venkata Ramudu S/O N. Thimmappa vs The Director Of Collegiate ... on 11 October, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VUTUKURU SRINIVAS
WRIT PETITION No. 9097 OF 2005
ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)
Heard Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri K.Bheemarao, learned Government Pleader for
Services-III, for the respondents apart from perusing the
material available on record.
2. Applicant in O.A.No.593 of 2004 on the file of the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called as the
'Tribunal') is the petitioner in the present writ petition, filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Petitioner herein, by invoking the provision of Section 19
of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, filed the aforesaid
original application, questioning the action of the respondent
authorities in issuing appointment to the 4th respondent as
Attender and for further declaration that the 4th respondent is
not eligible to be appointed against the said post of Attender
and for consequential direction to the authorities to appoint the
applicant/petitioner herein as attender/sweeper.
4. The Tribunal, vide the questioned order dated 30.03.2005,
dismissed the original application, principally on the ground that
the appointment of the 4th respondent was not cancelled either
by the appointing authority or by any court of law.
5. As mentioned supra, the Tribunal dismissed the original
application on 30th day of March, 2005. Subsequent to the
dismissal of the original application filed by the petitioner
herein, obviously on the complaint made by the petitioner, the
respondent authorities by way of an order dated 13.12.2012
terminated the services of the 4th respondent. The said order of
termination was questioned by the 4th respondent herein in
O.A.No.1559 of 2013. The Tribunal allowed the said original
application by way of an order dated 01.03.2016 on the ground
that the respondent authorities did not adhere to Rule 20 of the
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals)
Rules, 1991. It is not in dispute that thereafter pursuant to a
regular enquiry conducted, the 4th respondent herein was
terminated, vide proceedings Rc.No.1106/A1/2017, dated
13.03.2017, issued by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate
Education.
6. Subsequently, when the petitioner herein submitted a
representation to the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate
Education, Kadapa with a request to consider his case for
appointment as Attender in the resultant vacancy. The Regional
Joint Director of Collegiate Education, vide proceedings
Rc.No.1940/A1/2016, dated 07.04.2017, solicited instructions in
the matter from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education,
Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, the Special Commissioner of
Collegiate Education, vide proceedings Rc.No.135/OPI-I/2017,
dated 11.09.2017, permitted the Regional Joint Director of
Collegiate Education, Kadapa to take further necessary action on
the request of the applicant/petitioner for the post of attender.
Vide proceedings in Rc.No.4302/B1/2017 dated 05.01.2018,
obviously in furtherance of the instructions of the Special
Commissioner of Collegiate Education dated 11.09.2017, the
Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Kadapa
instructed the petitioner to submit the original qualification
certificates together with attestation copies to take further
action in this matter. The same was followed by another letter
dated 06.02.2018 addressed to the District Educational Officer.
7. Eventually, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate
Education, Kadapa, vide proceedings Rc.No.2922/B1/2017,
dated 29.09.2018, rejected the request of the petitioner to
consider his case for appointment as an Attender on the ground
that the petitioner herein did not file any other O.A. after his
failure in O.A.No.593 of 2004 and the selection process was
completed in the year, 2003 and that there is no panel.
8. In the above background, enclosing the aforementioned
documents, an application vide I.A.No.1 of 2018, seeking
amendment of the prayer in the writ petition, assailing the said
order of rejection also, came to be filed by the writ petitioner
in the present writ petition and the said I.A.No.1 of 2018 stood
allowed vide separate order.
9. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner
the impugned action on the part of the respondent authorities is
highly illegal and arbitrary and for the fault committed by the
4th respondent in the present writ petition in securing the
appointment by way of misrepresentation, the petitioner herein
cannot be penalized. It is further submitted that the objections
taken by the official respondents herein in their counter
affidavit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case are neither sustainable nor tenable.
10. On the contrary, Sri K.Bheemarao, learned Government
Pleader for Services-III, appearing for the official respondents
herein contends that the order passed by the Tribunal warrants
no interference of this Court and the petitioner has absolutely
no right to claim resultant vacancy in the absence of any waiting
list. In support of his submission and contentions, the learned
Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the
Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.4864 of 2011,
dated 20th day of June, 2013.
11. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the factum
of participation of the petitioner in the selection process
undertaken by the respondent authorities for the purpose of
filling up the post of Attender. The petitioner secured 353 marks
out of 600, which would come to 70.6%, whereas, the 4th
respondent secured 492 marks out of 600 i.e., 82%. The basic
qualification required for the purpose of consideration of a
candidate for appointment as per the recruitment procedure is
7th class. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent herein
pressed into service a fake certificate. It is also not in dispute
that on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner
herein, an enquiry was conducted and eventually the service of
the 4th respondent was also terminated on the said ground. The
counter filed by the Regional Joint Director Collegiate Education
in the present writ petition also indicates that criminal
prosecution was also launched against the 4th respondent.
12. The information available on record further discloses that
consequent upon the termination of the service of the 4 th
respondent a lot of correspondence took place and the
applicant/petitioner was also asked to submit his credentials.
But, by way of an order dated 29.09.2018, the Regional Joint
Director of Collegiate Education, declined to consider the case
of the petitioner herein on the ground that the selection process
was completed in the year, 2003 and there is no panel. It is
absolutely not in dispute that the petitioner herein approached
the Tribunal by way of filing the present O.A. in the year, 2004
and since then the litigation is pending before the Courts. It is
also significant to note in this context that when the petitioner
herein sought information under the Right to Information Act
from the concerned Degree College, the college authorities
responded to the same and informed that the posts of Office
Subordinate are vacant and the 4th respondent herein is not
working. The information obtained by the petitioner is also filed
as an additional document vide Memo, dated 11.08.2022. In the
considered opinion of this Court, for this entire episode, by any
stretch of imagination, the petitioner herein cannot be faulted.
13. The judgment cited by the learned Government Pleader in
W.P.No.4864 of 2011, dated 20.06.2013, in the considered
opinion of this Court, would not render any assistance to the
case of the respondents. A reading of the said judgment
indicates that having regard to the provisions under the relevant
rules and taking into consideration the subsequent events i.e.,
holding of selections during the subsequent years, the Composite
High Court refused to consider the case of the applicant and
allowed the writ petition filed by the State.
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the rejection of
the request of the petitioner by the Regional Joint Director of
Collegiate Education, vide proceedings dated 29.09.2018, cannot
stand for twin tests of reasonableness and rationality.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed,
setting aside the order dated 30.03.2005 passed by the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.593 of 2004 and the
proceedings of the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate
Education, Kadapa bearing Rc.No.2292/B1/2017, dated
29.09.2018 and consequently, the official respondents herein are
directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner for
appointment, on the basis of the marks secured by the
petitioner in the 7th class common examination, for the post of
Attender/Sweeper. This exercise shall be completed within a
period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of
this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________
A.V. SESHA SAI, J
_____________________
VUTUKURU SRINIVAS, J
Date: 11.10.2022
krs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VUTUKURU SRINIVAS
WRIT PETITION No. 9097 of 2005
DATE: 11.10.2022
krs
