Allowed

Pasa Ramayyamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jul 2022WP/11044/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ declaring illegal the rejection of her candidature as a local ST candidate for a plain area post and the appointment of another. The High Court found the appointment violated reservation rules and set aside the order, directing reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting petitioner's candidature and appointing 5th respondent set aside; respondents directed to reconsider petitioner's candidature within six weeks.

Pasa Ramayyamma, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11044 of 2020

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶5

“ to issue a Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the Official respondents, particularly the Order vide Rc.No.7517-A1-2020, dated 16.06.2020 of the 4^th respondent for rejected for rejected the Petitioner Candidature as Language Pandit (Hindi) in GPP Management in DSC-2018 in ZPPHS, Pydikonda, Thoundangi Mandal, East Godavari District and appointed, the 5^th respondent as Language Pandit (Hindi) in GPP Management in DSC-2018 in ZPPHS, Pydikonda, Thoundangi Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Clauses of Information Bullten-DSC-2018 and Rules under the Notification DSC-2018, without following due process known to law, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of the Constitutional rights under the constitution of India and consequently to set aside the Appointment of 5^th respondent as Language Pandit (Hindi) in GPP Management in DSC-2018 in ZPPHS, Pudikonda, Thoundangi Mandal, East Godavari District in the place of the petitioner and to grant such other or further orders……. ”

¶6

Heard Mr. G. Simhadri, learned counsel for the

¶7

petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education and learned Government Pleader for Services-III for the respondents.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that :

¶9

The petitioner belongs to Schedule Tribe (Plain Area) and she applied for the post of Language Pandit (Hindi) pursuant to the Notification No. 768/TRC-1/2018, dated 26.10.2018. The petitioner appeared examination on 03.01.2019 and she got 227^th Rank and she was attended for Certificates Verification on 29.02.2020 in the second selection list issued by the 2^nd

¶10

¶11

respondent. However, she was not permitted for verification, therefore she questioned them, who stated that the petitioner Low Meritorious Candidate, hence the official respondents consider the 5^th respondent, who got Rank 33. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.03.2020 to the 2^nd respondent, which was rejected dated 16.06.2020 stating that Web site on 23.03.2020 the language Pandit counseling was conducted on 09.06.2020 at Collectorate, East Godavari District, one Marri Shanti Priaya i.e 5^th respondent has opted ZPPHS, Pydikonda, Thoundangi Mandal and she joined in the place of posting. Therefore after careful examination of the representation of the individual as per provisional selection issued by the Commissioner of School Education, A.P the petitioner is not comes under Zone Selection to the post of Language Pandit (Hindi) in GPP Management in DSC-2018 as she is low meritorious candidate with Rank 227 than 5^th respondent, who rank is 33 is meritorious candidate and issued impugned proceedings dated 16.06.2020 by the 4^th respondent in rejecting the petitioner candidature as Language Pandit (Hindi) as illegal, arbitrary and hence the writ petition came to be filed.

¶12

4. Per contra, the respondents 1 to 4 filed counter affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that during the post of certificate verification the 5^th respondent submitted a representation to the respondents dated 28.02.2020 requesting to consider her case as local-ST plain candidate. Pursuant to the letter addressed by the 4^th respondent, the 2^nd respondent issued note dated 12.03.2020 to consider the candidature of 5^th respondent in GPP Management

¶13

¶14

in DSC-2018 under ST quota in the 3^rd provisional selection list as she is more meritorious candidate than the petitioner. Further contended that the 5^th respondent obtained rank No.33 and her name was not included in the 2^nd provision selection list. As per the rank of the 5^th respondent, she was initially placed in the provisional selection list and at the time of certificate verification and considering the case of the 5^th respondent under GPA management and hence her candidature was rejected in the first provisional selection list. Subsequently the 4^th respondent released the second provisional list, wherein the 5^th respondent name was not included and hence the 5^th respondent submitted a claim stating that at the time of submitting online application she applied for the post under a category of GPA though she belongs to Plain Schedule Tribe in GPP Management. In fact, said issue was noticed by the 2^nd respondent and hence the candidature of the 5^th respondent is considered under GPP Management. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the same.

¶15

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record the SSC Certificate, Intermediate Marks Memo, Study Certiricates from I Class to X Class and also Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate of the petitioner would show that she is studied and resident of Raghavapatnam Village, Rowthulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. Whereas learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record the Teacher Recruitment application and call letter of the 5^th respondent, wherein the address of the 5^th respondent shows that she is residing at Prathipadu Village and Mandal, East Godavari District and she earlier qualified in TETs

¶16

¶17

for the Tribal Mandal and village called Addateegala. Further the basic education details of the 5^th respondent shows that she studied from IV Class to X Class at East Godavari District.

¶18

6. Information Bulletin of the Commissioner of School Education, A.P, wherein it was mentioned at Rule 11(e) Rule of Reservation which reads as follows:

¶19

“e. Local Scheduled Tribe candidates shall only be considered for selection and appointment against the vacancies in Scheduled Areas. They shall also be considered for selection to the posts notified in Plain area, if they come up for selection”..

¶20

7. As could be seen from the above Clause, the applicant must be a local Scheduled Tribe, who is only considerable for selection and appointment against the vacancies in Scheduled Areas and they shall also be considered for selection to the posts notified in Plain area. The petitioner is also a local Scheduled Tribe, who applied for the post of Language Pandit (Hindi). The 5^th respondent is not a local Agency Area, off course, who opted on the Online Application for Tribal Mandal and Village: Addateegala, which was Agency Area. However, the 5^th respondent is not a local scheduled tribe, who belongs to Prathipadu Mandal, which is a plain area. If the 5^th respondent was selected as Local Agency Area (Scheduled Area0 on her merit, the respondents might have given appointment to the 5^th respondent for Schedule Area (Agency Area). But the respondents was given appointment in Plain Area in GPP Management in DSC-2018 in ZPPHS, Pydikonda, Thoundangi Mandal, East Godavari District, which is plain area and issued proceedings to the 5^th respondent, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶21

¶22

8. Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the record that the appointment of 5^th respondent who is not a local Agency Area, her candidature is declared as illegal and arbitrary irrespective of marks or ranks. Though the petitioner also qualified and being a local Agency Area, her candidature cannot be questionable as per Rule 11(e) Rule of Reservation of Information Bulliten-2018.

¶23

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the record and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, this Court finds that the impugned order vide Rc.No.7517-A1-2020, dated 16.06.2020 issued by the 4^th respondent in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner as Language Pandit (Hindi) in GPP Management in DSC-2018 in ZPPHS, Pydikonda, Thoundangi Mandal, East Godavari District and appointed the 5^th respondent as Language Pandit therein is declared as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Clauses for Information Bulletin DSC-2018 and rules under the Notification DSC-2018 and consequently set aside the same. Further directing the official respondents to re-consider the candidature of the petitioner by following the Rule 11(e) of Reservation as per Information Bulliten-2018 and place her in appropriate position as contemplated under the Notification and guidelines as stated supra, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

10. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

¶26

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications

¶27

shall stand closed.

¶28

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date : 21-07-2022

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.11044 of 2020

¶34

Date : 21.07.2022

¶35

Pasa Ramayyamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pasa Ramayyamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangiri Chinnammulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.a.Saleem, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Sai babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Chandra Sekhara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Nizam, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

B. Chandra Sekhara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh