Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N.Vandanam, vs The State Information Commissioner, on 4 October, 2024
APHC010793792018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 38349/2018
Between:
N. Vandanam, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Apsrtc ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A SREEDHAR
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC)
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3285/2018
Between:
N. Vandanam ...PETITIONER
AND
Sri Ch D Tirumala Rao ...CONTEMNOR
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A SREEDHAR
Counsel for the Contemnor:
1. SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC)
WRIT PETITION NO: 14897/2016
Between:
N.vandanam, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Information Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A SREEDHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. MOHSINA PARVEEN(SC FOR A.P IC)
2. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
Both the writ petitions and the contempt case are filed by the same
petitioner but by claiming different relief, however the issue involved in these
cases can be decided by way of a common order. Therefore, I am of the view
that it is appropriate to decide all the cases by common order taking Writ
Petition No.38349 of 2018 as leading petition.
2. W.P. No.38349 of 2018 came to be filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
writ of Mandamus and declare the action of the Respondent in not appointing the
petitioner as Traffic Supervisor in purusant to the notification No.R2/331(4)/ 1993-
HRD, dated 13-09-1993 for selection to the post of Traffic Supervisor is arbitrary,
illegal and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as sequel
direct the Respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Traffic Supervisor in
pursuant to the notification No.R2/331(4)I 1993-HRD, dated 13-09-1993 for
selection to the post of Traffic Supervisor, and pass..."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the in pursuance of a
notification dated 07.09.1993 issued by the respondent corporation for filling
up the vacant posts of Traffic Supervisors, the petitioner has applied for the
said post and has participated in the selection process. In the said process,
321 candidates were called for group exercise out of which 266 were
subjected to interview. The marks secured in the interview were sent to the
institute of banking for personal selection Mumbai through File
No.R2/331(4)/1993-HRD, dated 03.09.1996. Thereafter, for the reasons
known to the respondents, the respondents cancelled the notification. Few of
the aggrieved individuals challenged the cancellation of notification vide
W.P.No.13649, 18433 of 1997 wherein this Court held as under on
14.12.1999:
"12. In view of what is stated supra, we allow the writ petitions only to the extent of
the petitioners herein directing their appointment to the posts applied by them, in
case their names appeared in the select list pursuant to the notification dated 7-9-
1993. Rest of the vacancies can be made available to the candidates, who had
applied for appointment pursuant to the later notification dated 5-9-1997..."
4. Challenging the aforesaid order, the respondents preferred
special leave petition vide SLP.No.8255,8256 of 2001 before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2001 confirming
the order in W.P.Nos.13649, 18433 of 1997.On 29.01.2000, the petitioner has
submitted a representation to the respondents requesting to select him to the
post of traffic supervisor, but, however, as the same was not considered, the
petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.10585 of 2000 before this Court
which was disposed of on 20.08.2005 as under:
"...However, considering the fact that the petitioners are qualified in both the
written examination and the interview, I consider it appropriate to direct the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically in the existing
or future vacancies if any available in the Corporation."
5. After disposal of the said order, as the respondents have
rejected claim of the petitioner for the post of traffic supervisor trainee, the
petitioner has again filed writ petition W.P.No.2178 of 2006. Pending the said
writ petition, the petitioner has filed another writ petition vide W.P.No.1435 of
2009 challenging the action of the respondents in issuing the notification
No.R2/684(20)/2008-R&T, dated 21.11.2008 calling for applications for filling
up the post of traffic supervisor and for not complying the directions of this
Court passed in W.P.No.10585 of 2000, dated 20.08.2005. Both the writ
petitions i.e. W.P.No.2178 of 2006 and 1435 of 2009 were decided by way of
a common order dated 04.03.2009 directing the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner sympathetically in the existing or future vacancies if any
available in the corporation under service quota.
6. While things stood thus, the petitioner received list of
candidates who were called for interview for selection to the post of traffic
supervisor, wherein the petitioner‟s name was shown at serial No.12 in
respect of Nellore zone. However, the Chief Manager (HRD) issued
proceedings dated 11.01.2013, informing the petitioner that his name was not
figured in the final selection list. Subsequently, the petitioner sought for a copy
of the final selection list under RTI Act, but the concerned authority has failed
to furnish the said list, as a result of which, the petitioner has filed an appeal
before the State Information Commission which was numbered as
No.26993/SIC-Dr.VV/2013. The State Information Commissioner, on
25.02.2014 has passed the following order:
"The PIO submitted that the 6(1) application dated 05-02-2013 filed by the
applicant for the information pertaining to very old period (20 years back
information) and after receipt of application, the available information was
furnished through letters dated 11-2-2013 and 07-03-2013.
The PIO further submitted that after receipt of appeal dated 16-03-203 and
subsequent representation dated 25-09-2013 also the information was furnished to
the appellant through letters dated 22-04-2013 and 10-10-2013 respectively.
The Commission after going through the records and submissions made by the
appellant as well as the PIO, directs the PIO to furnish available information to the
appellant, within 15 days, free of cost by RPAD, under intimation to the
Commission."
7. As the petitioner has not received complete information in
pursuance of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed another complaint
No.19178/SIC-Dr.V.V./2014, wherein the State Information Commissioner has
passed the following order on 10.12.2014:
"The PIO submitted that available information was already furnished to the
applicant which was also acknowledged and that the balance information could not
be furnished to the applicant due to non-availability of 20 years back record.
Since available information was furnished, the complaint is closed."
8. Challenging the aforesaid orders dated 25.02.2014 and
10.12.2014, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before this Court vide
W.P.No.14897 of 2016 (which is the other writ petition in the present
batch).Pending the said writ petition the petitioner has preferred the present
W.P.No.38349 of 2018 challenging the action of the respondents in not
appointing the petitioner to the post of traffic supervisor pursuant to the
notification dated 13.09.1993.
9. When W.P.No.38349 of 2018 came up for admission, this
Court has passed the following order in I.A.No.1 of 2018 on 24.10.2018:
"Within two (02) weeks from today, the respondents shall handover to the counsel
for petitioner, copy of the Selection List for selection to the post of Traffic
Supervisor made vide Notification NO.R2/331(4)/1993-HRD, dt.13.09.1993.
10. As the respondents have not complied with the order dated
24.10.2018, the petitioner has filed a contempt case vide C.C.No.3285 of
2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.38349 of 2018.
11. The sole contemnor has filed a detailed reply affidavit stating
that an advertisement was released calling for applications from eligible
candidates vide notification dated 07.09.1993 to fill up 83 vacancies of
Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) and 81 vacancies of Traffic Supervisor
(Trainee) in the respondent corporation. For conducting the aforesaid
recruitment, the respondent corporation hired the services of Institute of
Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), Bombay; which has conducted written
test for Traffic Supervisor Trainee on 25.09.1994. Further, IBPS conducted
group exercises to the qualified candidates from 21.11.1995 to 22.11.1995
and subsequentlya list of 243 candidates was notified for interview for the post
of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee). While so, the Government of A.P. issued G.O.
Ms.No.237, dated 28.05.1996 for implementation of 33 1/3 % reservations for
women in Direct Recruitment posts. But, however, as the corporation has
failed to implement the said reservation for women, the recruitment notification
dated 07.09.1993 was cancelled by the respondent corporation. A Press
Notification was issued on 16.05.1997 that the written Examination conducted
on 25.09.1994 for the posts of Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) & Traffic
Supervisor (Trainee) followed by group discussions and interviews is
cancelled due to administrative exigencies.The cancellation of 1993
Recruitment Notification was challenged by Sri P.C.Ayyala Reddy & Sri
P.Krishna Reddy in WP No.13649 of 1997 and by Sri K. Shivaji in W.P. No.
18433 of 1997; which were disposed of with a direction to consider the
petitioners therein for appointment if they are in selected Zone. Challenging
which, APSRTC filed SLP No.8155-8156/2000 before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the same as follows:
"In view of the fact that the High Court has granted relief which is limited to the
Respondents only, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter".
12. In compliance to the aforesaid orders, when APSRTC
reviewed the status of the 3 aforesaid persons, only Sri P.Krishna Reddy's
name figured in the selection list and hence he was appointed as Traffic
Supervisor Trainee. As the names of Sri P.C.Ayyala Reddy and K.Shivaji were
not figured in the selection list, they were not appointed as Traffic Supervisor
Trainee.
13. It is further stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioner and
another filed WP No.10585 of 2000, and same was disposed of with the
following directions:
"However considering the fact that the petitioners are qualified in both the written
examination and the interview, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents
to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically in the existing or future
vacancies if available in the Corporation".
14. In compliance with the aforesaid orders, the Chief Manager
(HRD) issued proceedings No.R2/785(1)/2000-HRD, dated 27.12.2005
informing that, at that time there was no direct recruitment to the post of Traffic
Supervisor Trainee and that the Government of A.P.through its letter
No.2475/TR.II(2)/2005-1, dated 05.03.2005 has directed the Corporation that
the Act-2 of 1994 of Finance Department, specifically prohibits recruitment in
any post in the Organisation either on daily wage basis or on regular basis
and without the prior approval of the Government, no recruitment shall be
taken up. As such, the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected.
15. Thereafter, the petitioner filed second Writ Petition vide
W.P.No.2178 of 2006 in the matter, against the said proceedings. Pending the
same, the petitioner filed a third WP No. 1435 of 2009 against issuance of
NotificationNo.R2/684(20)/2008-R&T, Dt.21.12.2008 calling for applications
for TST & MST from eligible departmental candidates by not complying with
the directions of this Court in W.P. No.10585 of 2000 and not appointing the
petitioner as Traffic Supervisor Trainee, wherein this Court has disposed of
both Writ Petitions viz., 2178 of 2006 and 1435 of 2009 in a common order
and directed as follows:
"There is no notification with regard to filling up the 10% of the vacancies from the
service candidates. In which case, the direction given by this Court in W.P. No.
10585 of 2000 shall hold good. The case of the petitioner has to be considered
sympathetically in the existing or future vacancies if any available in the
Corporation under service quota".
16. In compliance with the above common order, a Selection
Committee was constituted to examine and to consider the case of the
petitioner herein for selection to the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee)
consisting of Executive Director, Chief Personnel Manager and Dy.CPM
(Recruitment). The Committee noted that there were very limited records to
examine the case on hand and that the cancellation of Recruitment
Notification was challenged by Sri P.C.Ayyala Reddy,Sri P.Krishna Reddy and
Sri K.Shivaji before the High Court and the Court ordered to consider the
petitioners therein for appointment if they are in selected zone. The
Committee noted that in W.P.No.10585 of 2000 filed by the petitioner herein,
he has has referred to the W.Ps filed by Sri P.Krishna Reddy, Sri P.C.Ayyala
Reddy and Sri K.Shivaji. Accordingly, the Committee therefore proposed to
review the case of the petitioner in terms of the High Court orders in the case
of Sri P.Krishna Reddy and 2 others and based on the orders of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP No.8155 of 2000 & 8156 of 2000. But the Committee
noted that Selection list was not available to see if the name of petitioner is
figured out in the selection list. In the absence of the final selection list, the
Committee had to depend on secondary evidence. The committee noted that
the statement made by the petitioner in W.P.No.2178 of 2006 that he was
selected to the post is not correct and accordingly, the committee has
concluded that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment for the post of TST
in terms of the orders passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
SLP.Nos.8155-8156 of 2000, dated 16.04.2001.
17. It is further stated that, the averment of the petitioner that the
proceedings dated 11.01.2013 were issued on the basis of the selection list,
but the same was not disclosed is not correct. The final selection list is not
available with the Recruitment section and in the absence of the same, the
Committee examined the case of the petitioner on the basis of limited
available information and issued proceedings.The petitioner filed W.P
No.14897/2016 seeking information, particularly, the final selection list for the
selection to the post of Traffic Supervisor vide Notification No.
R2/331(4)/1993-HRD, dated 13.09.1993, alleging that the Public Information
Officer of the APSRTC failed to provide the information under RTI Act; which
petition is still pending.
18. In pursuance of the interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court
in Writ Petition No.38349 of 2018, the respondent requested the Director,
IBPS, Mumbai through letter No. R5/785(3)/2018-HRD&W, dated 17.12.2018
to send a copy of the merit list and list of candidates attended for interview for
the post of Traffic Supervisor in response to the Notification dated 13.09.1993,
as the services of IBPS, Mumbai were hired by APSRTC for conducting the
said recruitment.In reply, the Deputy General Manager(Legal), IBPS, Mumbai,
vide letter no. nil, dated 31.12.2018 informed that the project was done during
the year 1993-96; as suchall the reports / data related to the said project were
shared with APSRTC after the completion of the process at that time.
Thereafter, as per prevalent polices of IBPS all data / reports were destroyed
according to the retention / removal polices of IBPS and hence, the same is
not available with them. Therafter, a renewed effort was made by the Chief
Personnel Manager, APSRTC to locate the original records of recruitments
held in 1993 and some records pertaining to "Draft Select List" as per
communal roster were obtained from TSRTC. As the name of one Sri B
Krishna Reddy, one of the petitioners in WP No.13649 of 1997 was mentioned
in short listed candidates of such "Draft Select List" for appointment in
Hyderabad zone against roster point number 19 for filling 34 vacancies, orders
appointing him as TST were issued, in compliance with the judgment dated
14.12.1999 in WP No.13649 of 1997 filed by P C Ayyala Reddy and B Krishna
Reddy and W.P. No.18433 of 1997 filed by K. Sivaji. The respondents have
tried to figure out the name of the petitioner as was done in the case of Sri B.
Krishna reddy, but the name of the petitioner was not found in such "Draft
Select List" of candidates short listed for appointment as TST in Nellore zone
[which is his parent zone] against 5 (five) vacancies. As such it is evident that
the petitioner was not among the selected candidates for appointment as
TSTs and hence, he does not have a claim for being appointed as TST.
Hence, requested to dismiss both the writ petitions and the contempt case.
19. Heard Sri. A. Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri. M. Solomon Raju, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.
20. On a perusal of the material available, it can be seen that
initially a notification dated 07.09.1993 was issued by the respondent
corporation for filling up the 81 vacancies of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) and
for conducting the recruitment, the respondent corporation has hired the
services of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (hereinafter referred to as
„IBPS‟).The IBPS has conducted written test for the post of Traffic Supervisor
Trainee on 25.09.1994 and after due process, a list with 243 candidates was
notified for interview. At that time, the State Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.237, dated 28.05.1996directing to implement 331/3% reservations
for women in direct recruitment posts; in order to implement the same, the
respondents have cancelled the recruitment notification dated 07.09.1993 by
issuing a press notification on 16.05.1997. Aggrieved by the same, three
persons have approached this Court vide W.P.Nos.13649, 18433 of 1997
wherein this Court has disposed of the petitions directing the respondents to
consider them for appointment if they are in selected zone; challenging the
said order the respondent corporation has also filed a SLP before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court, which was dismissed confirming that the said order in the writ
shall not be treated as a precedent.
21. In order to comply the aforesaid orders, the respondent
corporation review the status of the aforesaid persons and found that only one
person‟s name (Sri Krishna Reddy) was figured in the selection list and
accordingly, the said person was appointed as Traffic Supervisor Trainee. In
the year 2000, the petitioner along with another filed W.P.No.10585 of 2000;
in which this Court has directed the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioners therein sympathetically. However, the Chief Manager, vide
proceedings dated 27.12.2005 informing that the State Government vide its
letter dated 05.03.2005 stated that no recruitment shall be taken up without
the prior approval of the Government; as such, taking into consideration the
letter of the Government, the case of the petitioner herein was rejected. The
petitioner has filed a contempt case vide C.C.No.1407 of 2005 in
W.P.No.10585 of 2000 and the same was dismissed accordingly.
22. In the year 2009 the petitioner has filed W.P.No.1435 of 2009
challenging the notification dated 21.12.2008 issued by the respondent
corporation for filling up the posts of TST and MST; accordingly, the
respondents were directed to consider the case of petitioner sympathetically in
the existing or future vacancies if any available in the corporation under
service quota. In pursuance of the same, the respondent corporation has
constituted a committee and noted that there are very meagre records to
examine the case of the petitioner. As such, the committee proposed to review
the case of the petitioner in terms of the orders passed by this Court in
W.P.Nos.13649, 18433 of 1997; however, vide proceedings dated 31.12.2012
it felt that had the petitioner been selected, his name could have been figured
as was done in the case of one Sri. Krishna Reddy.Therefore, the committee
has come to a conclusion that the petitioner could not be selected to the post
of traffic supervisor.
23. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted an application
seeking some information under RTI Act; on receipt of which the available
information was furnished to the petitioner vide letters dated 11.02.2013 and
07.03.2013. Thereafter, on 16.03.2013 the petitioner has submitted an appeal
before the Executive Director (A&P), which was forwarded to the appellate
authority and a reply was submitted to the petitioner on 22.04.2013. Being not
satisfied, the petitioner has preferred further appeal before the State
Information Commission, which has issued notices vide case NO.26993/SIC-
Dr.V.V/2013, dated 05.02.2014 directing the respondents to appear on
25.02.2014; pursuant to which the concerned officers have appeared
subsequent to which the Commission on 25.02.2014 directed to furnish
information to the petitioner within 15 days. Accordingly, the respondents vide
letter dated 01.05.2014 stated as under:
"...It is to inform you that all are efforts have been made to trace out the records so
as to furnish the balance information. But it is regretted to inform that the said
information could not be traced out and therefore unable to furnish the same."
24. The petitioner has again filed a complaint on 16.07.2014
before the State Information Commission; pursuant to which notices were
issued to the respondents directing to appear for hearing on 10.12.2014 and
the respondents have submitted that the available information was already
furnished to the applicant. Considering the same, the complaint was closed on
10.12.2014. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the other writ
petition i.e. W.P.No.14897 of 2016 but could not succeed in obtaining an
interim order; pending which the petitioner has filed W.P.No.38349 of 2018.
This Court on 24.10.2018 has directed the respondents to handover a copy of
the selection list for selection to the post of Traffic Supervisor made vide
notification dated 13.09.1993.
25. As discussed earlier, the respondent corporation has utilized
the services of IBPS for conducting the recruitment in pursuance of the
notification dated 13.09.1993. As such, in order to comply the aforesaid
orders, the respondents vide letter dated 17.12.2018,have requested the
Director, IBPS, Mumbai to furnish a copy of the merit list and list of candidates
who have attended for interview for the post of Traffic Supervisor in response
to the notification dated 13.09.1993. In reply, the Deputy General Manager
(Legal), IBPS, Mumbai vide letter dated 31.12.2018 informed that as the
recruitment belongs to the period 1993-1996, all the reports/data related to the
same were shared with the respondent corporation; subsequently, as per
prevalent policies of IBPS, all the data/reports were destroyed as per the
retention/removal policies of IBPS.
26. As the information sought by the respondents was not
available with IBPS, the respondents have obtained few original records of
recruitments held in 1993 and few pertaining to draft select list from TSRTC.
The respondents have verified the name of the petitioner in the said list as
they found the name of Sri. B. Krishna Reddy; however, the petitioner‟s name
was not figured out in such draft select list.
27. As per the material available on record and in view of the
aforesaid discussion, it can be seen that the recruitment for the post of Traffic
Supervisor Trainee belongs to the period 1993-1996 and the said recruitment
process was handed over by the respondent corporation to IBPS; the IBPS in
compliance to the notification issued in the year 1993 have conducted
examinations and subjected candidates for interviews. However, as the 331/3%
reservation for women was not implemented in the notification issued by the
respondents in the year 1993, the recruitment notification was cancelled. It
can also be seen that all the reports/data related to the said recruitment were
destroyed as per the retention/removal policies of IBPS. The respondents
have also tried to consider the case of the petitioner as was done in the case
of Sri. B. Krishna Reddy, however, the name of the petitioner was not found in
the said draft select list.
28. In view of the above discussion, this Court feels that the
W.P.Nos.38349 of 2018 and 14897 of 2016 are liable to be dismissed. So far
as the contempt case is concerned, this Court feels that the sole contemnor
has complied with the orders passed by this Court on 24.10.2018 by
furnishing all the available information with the respondents. As such, the
C.C.No.3285 of 2018 is also liable to be dismissed.
29. In the result W.P.Nos.38349 of 2018, 14897 of 2016 and
C.C.No.3285 of 2018 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Petition, shall stand
closed.
______________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date: .10.2024
Gss
