Cheboyina Karthik vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3091 AP

                                           1




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                       &
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
                     WRIT PETITION NO.20856 of 2022

 Between:-

 Cheboyina Karthik                                    ....      Petitioner

                                       And

 1) The State of Andhra Pradesh,
 represented by its Principal Secretary,
 Law & Legislative Affairs Department,
 Amaravati, Guntur District.

 2) The High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
 represented by its Registrar (Administration)        .....    Respondents


 Counsel for the Petitioner       : Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy

 Counsel for the Respondents      : Mr.N.Ashwani Kumar, Learned Standing
                                    Counsel for High Court of A.P.,

                                    ORDER

12 .05.2023 (Per Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the

respondents, more particularly, respondent No.2 in not appointing the

petitioner as Assistant in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by considering

his candidature under BC-D Category as illegal, arbitrary and violative of

Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent

No.2 vide Notification No.2 of 2021 dated 09.09.2021 invited applications for

appointment to the post of Assistant and Examiner in the High Court

Services by Direct Recruitment from the eligible candidates. He submits that

the petitioner at that relevant point of time was effected with Covid-19 and

therefore requested one of his friends to apply for the post of Assistant on

behalf of the petitioner, as he was not in a position to apply for the same in

person. The learned counsel submits that accordingly an application was

submitted on behalf of the petitioner through online and in the test

conducted by the High Court the petitioner was provisionally selected, but

the petitioner was shown in „BC-B‟ Category List, whereas he belongs to

„BC-D‟ Category. He submits that the petitioner on enquiry learnt from his

friend that while applying for the post of Assistant, due to mistaken

impression that the petitioner belongs to „BC-B‟ Category, the application

was submitted under the said Category. In those circumstances, the learned

counsel submits that the petitioner made a representation on 25.03.2022 to

the 2nd respondent. He further submits that subsequently the petitioner

came to know that one Mr.Kasireddy Sarath Chandra, who was appointed as

Assistant under „BC-D‟ Category left the job, as he got selection in the State

Bank of India and as a post fell vacant under „BC-D‟ Category, the petitioner

again made another representation on 19.04.2022 to the respondent No.2 to

consider the petitioner‟s candidature under the said Category. He submits

that as the petitioner‟s representations had not yielded any result, much

less, any positive response, the petitioner is constrained to approach this

Court seeking appropriate relief.

4. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner secured equal

marks on par with said Kasireddy Sarath Chandra, who left the job and as a

vacancy arose, the petitioner can be appointed in that vacancy. He submits

that as the petitioner seriously fell ill due to Covid-19, the petitioner‟s

application was submitted through online by the petitioner‟s friend, who

committed an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the Category of reservation

as „BC-B‟ instead of „BC-D‟ and for the said mistake the petitioner cannot be

penalized. He submits that the marks secured by the petitioner itself

indicates that the petitioner is meritorious and therefore a direction may be

issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for

appointment as Assistant under „BC-D‟ Category.

5. Per contra, Mr.N.Ashwani Kumar, Learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent No.2 submits that there is no dispute about the petitioner‟s

provisional selection for the post of Assistant in „BC-B‟ Category.

He submits that during the verification of Certificates, it was found that the

petitioner produced a Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar,

wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner belongs to „BC-D‟ Category. He

submits that as per Note I & II to the Notification dated 09.09.2021, the

particulars furnished by the applicant in the application form will be taken as

final and that any information furnished by the candidate subsequently will

not be entertained. He submits that the petitioner in view of the above

Caution Note should have been diligent while submitting his application and

if any mistake was committed at the time of submitting the application, no

changes can be entertained later, more particularly, as it would affect the

rights of the other candidates, who have diligently given correct information

while updating their Community/Category status. He submits that if a

candidate is allowed to change his Category of Reservation once the

recruitment or selection process has commenced, it would lead to unending

and chaotic process of recruitment. He submits that the petitioner‟s

representation was placed before the Committee of the Hon‟ble Judges and

in the light of Note I & II of the Notification dated 09.09.2021, the

Committee had resolved to reject the request of the petitioner for

appointment to the Post of Assistant under „BC-D‟ Category instead of „BC-B‟

Category. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision in Arti

Verma vs. State of U.P.,1 and submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of

merits and liable to be dismissed.

6. On due appreciation of the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel

for both sides, the point for adjudication by this Court is as to whether the

relief as sought for by the petitioner can be granted?

2014 SCC Online All 15670

7. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that in the application

submitted through online, the Category of Reservation was mentioned as

„BC-B‟. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner though tried to impress upon

this Court that due to a mistake inadvertently committed by the petitioner‟s

friend who submitted the application on behalf of the petitioner, the

Category was mentioned as „BC-B‟ instead of „BC-D‟, the same merits no

acceptance in view of the contents of the Notification especially

Note I & Note II.

8. In Arti Verma referred to supra, a Division Bench of the Allahabad

High Court headed by Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, C.J (as he then was) was

dealing with a matter which is more or less similar to the case on hand.

The appellant in the said case raised a contention that as a result of an error

committed by the Computer Operator, he was wrongly shown in the

Category of Freedom Fighter. The Hon‟ble Court while rejecting the appeal

held that "it was as a result of an error committed by the Computer

Operator cannot simply be accepted for the reason that the appellant would

necessarily be responsible for any statement which he made online."

The Hon‟ble Court further held that "if the Courts were to accept such a plea

of the appellant, that would result in a situation where the appellant would

get the benefit of a wrong category if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if

noticed, the appellant could always turn around and claim that this was as a

result of human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the

consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly."

The Hon‟ble Court further held that "interference of the High Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India is clearly not warranted in such

matters as it creates grave uncertainty since the selection process cannot be

finally completed."

9. In Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and another vs. Neetu

Harsh and another 2 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dealing with an

appeal filed against the Judgment of High Court of Rajasthan.

The respondent therein applied to the post of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate in the Civil Judge Cadre against two vacancies reserved for

disabled candidates indicating her category as „General‟ and specifically

mentioned „No‟ in the Column provided for indication of the claim under the

Differently-abled Category. She was selected under the „General Category‟

and later on as she was placed at Serial No.137 requested to consider her

candidature under the Category for „Differently-abled Persons‟ as „Visually

Impaired‟ and to provide the appointment. As her representation was not

considered she filed Writ Petition, which was allowed, with a direction to

consider her candidature for appointment under the said Category. In the

appeal, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court opined that the application under the

Category of "Differently-abled Persons" should have been made and held

that the directions issued by the High Court cannot be considered as

justified when no such claim was made. Accordingly, the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court set aside the orders passed by the High Court.

(2021) 11 SCC 383

10. In the present case, the mistake stated to have been committed at

the time of applying for the post, be it by the petitioner‟s friend as sought to

be explained is fatal, and incurable. Merely because one of the candidates

selected for the Post of Assistant under „BC-D‟ Category left the job, it would

not enure to the benefit of the petitioner or enable him to lay any claim over

the vacant post. The petitioner has to bear the consequences of not

applying to the post in question with correct information. Therefore, the

contentions raised by the petitioner are rejected.

11. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court in the light of the

above referred decisions, coupled with the conditions of Notification in

Note I & II is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for

the relief sought for. Point is accordingly answered against the petitioner.

12. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as

to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ                            NINALA JAYASURYA, J
                                                                           IS





      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION NO.20856 of 2022

Dated: 12.05.2023

IS