) Heard Sri. Jupudi V K Yagnadutt vs Ms.Thota Suneetha
2023 Latest Caselaw 3406 AP

                                          1



      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

             MAIN CASE: W.P. No. 15119 of 2023
                              PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.
                                                ORDER

No. DATE

04. 13.07.2023 RNT,J & SV,J (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

1) Heard Sri. Jupudi V K Yagnadutt, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.Thota Suneetha, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7.

2) The Petitioners issued Notification, dated 27.10.2017, for selection to fill up 102 vacancies on post of 'Ticket Examiner (TE)". The Respondents also applied. The examination was conducted and the list of qualified candidates in the written examination was published on 09.04.2018, however the same was cancelled on 07.05.2018. The re-examination was conducted on 26.05.2018, in which the Respondents were declared qualified on 28.05.2018. The candidates who qualified in the first examination but not in the second examination filed O.A. Nos. 474 of 2018, challenging the cancellation of the first examination as also for additional reliefs, which was disposed of by Order, dated 15.11.2018, with the directions as under:

i. "To issue a fresh notification and conduct the exam afresh to select candidates for the post of Ticket Examiner against 33 1/3 % quota by giving reasonable time to the candidates to prepare and appear.

ii. To allow all those candidates who appeared in the 1st exam and the re- exam, to appear in the proposed exam to be conducted without disqualifying them on grounds of age or any other parameter.

iii. To permit other candidates who are eligible to appear, in order to usher in a healthy competition and select the best among the lot, by conducting the exam and the selection in a vigilant, fair, uniform and transparent manner.

iv. Taking into account that Group D/Group C staff are expected to be computer literate, the Respondents may think of conducting exams in future on an IT platform with objective type questions with highly secure software's which are proven and tested. This will bring in transparency, automated evaluation, evaluation accuracy, economy in conduct of exams, instant results, curbing diversion of regular staff to malpractices by random jumbling of questions candidate wise etc. Associated action of a pen mounted camera placed in the exam hall or on the body of the invigilator will send real-time video images of the conduct of the exam which can be

monitored from a command centre with provision to store such images for future reference. These tools are relatively cheap but highly efficient. Such surveillance would send chilling fear in anyone's spine and would be an effective deterrent against exam malpractices. The Respondents organization with the strong IT backing can easily adopt the suggestion. The suggestion is made since the Respondents organization is the pride of the Nation and any dent to its image is not in Public interest. We also make it lucid that this is only suggestive and not a directive. It is open to the respondents to do what best they can to make the exams free of all variants of malpractices. The earlier the better lest they have to continue fighting legal battles on exams which can be avoided by harnessing appropriate and well grounded I.T solutions. Suggestions may be brought to the notice of the first Respondent for taking necessary action as is deemed fit in the matter in the interests in Respondents organization.

v. The fact that the respondents do also put in lot of hard work and efforts to organize an exam as much as the candidates in preparing for the exam, we leave it open to the Respondents to act sternly against all those involved in derailing the selection/exam process in question by getting to those who have been honest in writing the exam or submitting

themselves to a selection. We are making this observation considering the trend of exam related litigation involving the Respondents.

vi. Time allowed to implement the order is 4 months from the date of receipt of this order."

3) It is submitted that, the first notification was cancelled on 12.12.2018 and a fresh notification, dated 18.12.2018, was issued for the 102 vacancies on the post of "Ticket Examiner". The Petitioners also preferred W.P. No. 45675 of 2018 and W.P. No. 102 of 2019, in which, vide interim order, dated 03.01.2019, it was provided that the process may go on but the same shall not be finalized. Later on, both the writ petitions were dismissed on 14.08.2020 confirming the order of the Tribunal, dated 15.11.2018. Pursuant to the Notification, dated 18.12.2018, the examination was conducted on 29.03.2019 and the result was declared on 08.04.2019. It is submitted that, on scrutiny, discrepancies were noticed in evaluation of OMR sheets. Pursuant thereto, notices were issued to the qualified candidates on 23.09.2020 and the entire selection was cancelled on 23.09.2020. Challenging this cancellation, the Respondents filed O.A. No. 651 of 2020.

4) The Tribunal has partly allowed the O.A., vide Order, dated 25.07.2022.

5) The Tribunal held that, the applicants herein have qualified the examinations conducted by the respondents thrice. The stand taken by the respondents in the reply statement that it is not possible to verify the answer booklets of all the candidates is not convincing to this Tribunal as the number of candidates appeared in the written examination are hundred or so. Be that as it may. The respondents have taken an administrative decision and we are not going to interfere in that. This tribunal feels that the applicants, having qualified the examination thrice, will definitely have legitimate expectations for appointment to the said post but due to the irregularities occurred in the examinations conducted by the respondents, the applicants have been suffering. The applicants are nowhere at fault. It is well settled in law that the mistake of department should not be attributable to the employer.

6) The Tribunal issued the following directions:

"II) After going through the pleadings of the case, submissions of the parties and also the legal position, the respondents are directed to conduct a fresh examination within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicants herein shall

be allowed to appear in the said examination. If the applicants qualify in the examination to be conducted by the respondents, they should be given seniority w.e.f. 19.04.2018, the date on which the results of first written examination were declared. Ordered accordingly. As the applicants have been suffering since a long time it is expected from the respondents that the examination will be conducted at the earliest by taking necessary steps in order not to give any scope for irregularities."

7) Challenging the Order, dated 25.07.2022, the Petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

8) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the direction to conduct fresh examination on the post of 'Ticket Examiner' is not justified, as the post of the 'Ticket Examiner' along with two other categories of posts was merged into Commercial-cum-Ticket Collector [CCTC] vide Serial Circular No. 33 of 2018, dated 08.03.2018.

9) Ms. Thota Suneetha, submits that, any such plea of Circular, dated 08.03.2018, was not raised before the Tribunal and even after the Circular, dated 08.03.2018, the 2nd and 3rd time examinations were held by the Petitioners for the same post of Ticket Examiner.

10) The aforesaid facts are not disputed.

11) Further, it could not be disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that any such plea was not taken in the Writ Petition Nos. 45675 of 2018 and 102 of 2019, which were dismissed on 14.08.2020 affirming the order of the Tribunal, dated 15.11.2018, directing to hold fresh selection for the post of 'Ticket Examiner', pursuant to which the Petitioners issued notification for the post of 'Ticket Examiner'. It is submitted by the Petitioners Counsel that the judgment, dated 14.08.2020, has attained finality.

12) Consequently, we are satisfied that the direction issued by the Tribunal to conduct fresh examination for the post of 'Ticket Examiner' and allowing the Respondents herein to appear in the said examination cannot be faulted and we decline to interfere with that part of judgment.

13) However, prima facie, we are satisfied with the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the further direction by the Tribunal that, if the applicants [present Respondents] qualify in the examination to be conducted, they should be given seniority w.e.f. 19.04.2018, the date on which the results of the 1st examination were declared, could not be

issued, and on this point only the matter requires deeper consideration.

14) Issue notice to Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10.

15) Let the Respondents file counter affidavit(s) within four [04] weeks.

16) Reply affidavit, if any, may be filed within a further period of two [02] weeks.

17) List on 31.08.2023.

18) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are ready to conduct the fresh examination within a period of four [04] weeks from today for the post of 'Ticket Examiner'.

19) Accordingly, we stay only the part of the Tribunal's order relating to the grant of seniority, as mentioned in para (13) supra.

20) The Petitioners shall conduct fresh examination on the post of 'Ticket Examiner' pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal dated 25.07.2022, within in a period of four [04] weeks from today.

_______ RNT, J

_____ SV, J SM/