Allowed

N.Girijamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jul 2022WP/19289/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the exclusion of a petitioner from a School Assistant selection due to a minor delay in uploading service genuineness certificates. Applying the Potluri Anjali precedent, the court ordered appointment with notional seniority but denied monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Directed appointment as School Assistant with notional seniority; denied monetary benefits; directed creation of supernumerary post if no vacancy exists.

N.Girijamma, Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19289 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 the impugned action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of School Assistant notified in Notification No 768/TRC1/2018 dated 15.02.2019 though petitioner got merit marks and by denying Service Weightage marks to the petitioner only the ground that the Genuineness Certificate about service particulars of the petitioner were not uploaded and delay for 2 days as highly illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other or further orders……. ”

¶6

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been working in S.V. School for Deaf, under TTD Tirupati from 21.08.2006 on contract basis with occasional breaks shown by the respondents during summer vacation from 24^th April to 11^th June every year. While so, a Notification was issued called special DSC for the post of School Assistant vide No.768/TRC1/2018 dated 15.02.2019 and written exam was conducted on 19.06.2019. The petitioner appeared for the same with Hall Ticket No.19100115.

¶7

As per G.O.Ms.No.31dated 06.05.2019, weightage marks have been allowed, to all those working in IEDSS/IERT’s/CRT’s Schools under control of TTD, to the extent of ½ mark for every

¶8

¶9

year of service. After conducting examinations, the respondents have instructed the candidates to upload the Service Certificates from the Institutions, wherever, they are working. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted her Service Certificate from the S.V. School for Deaf on 20.10.2019. Though the petitioner rendered service for more than 15 years, only 5 marks have been awarded. Further, the respondents have called candidates for verification through News paper dated 07.12.2019, the petitioner attended the verification on 11.12.2019 and submitted her original documents. Thereafter, on 22.06.2020 the office of the 4^th respondent addressed the School authorities or confirming the genuineness of the certificates of the Candidates with the direction that the same should be on or before 30.06.2020. but the petitioner was not given any information about the same and due to Covid situation, the genuineness confirmation seemed to be have delayed. Accordingly, the petitioner requested the 4^th respondent through mail on 03.07.2020 for granting some more time to submit the said certificate. However, without granting any time, the authorities have published merit list and selection list on 03.07.2020 at midnight and conducted certificate verification on 04.07.2020. Hence the present writ petition.

¶10

Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents while denying all the averments made in the petition, contended that the petitioner attended the verification on 11.12.2019 and submitted her original documents. Thereafter, the TTD

¶11

¶12

authorities were addressed in a letter Rc.No.2019/ Spl.Edn./A1/201, dated 5.6.2020 and mail dated 27.6.2020 to furnish the genuineness of the service certificates as per the instructions issued by the 2^nd respondent. In view of urgency, the staff of 4^th respondent have approached the E.O., TTD, Tiruapti personally to firm the genuineness of the service certificate and not later than 30.06.2020 so as to finalize the selection list of DSC 2018. Instructions have been issued in Memo No.3154447/TRC-2/2019, dated 30.06.2020 to conform genuine certificate through web link before 01.07.2020. the selection has to be finalized state wide within the stipulated period. The respondents are not competent to postpone the selection process as it is a State wide recruitment process. It is also contended that the candidates who were listed in provisional selection list were aware the process of final selection list and who informed from time to time.

¶13

It is stated that the respondents are unable to consider the request of the petitioner since the respondents have to finalize final selection process within the stipulated time. It is also stated that by the time the petitioner approached the 4^th respondent with genuineness certificate on 04.072020 and by that time the final selection was over to over all State and merit list was also published. It is a fact that the petitioner approached the respondents several times to consider her request but they were unable to consider the same due to the fact that list was already finalized. Once the merit list is finalized and released, the merit list could not be changed and

¶14

¶15

her request for considering and revise the merit list, leads to several legal complications. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶16

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶17

It is an admitted fact that the as per Notification No.768/TRC-1/2018, dated 15.02.2019, the petitioner has applied and written examination with Hall Ticket No.19100115. Thereafter, as per News paper intimation, dated 07.12.2019, the petitioner attended the verification on 11.12.2019 and submitted original documents. With regard to submission of genuineness certificate by the petitioner, due to Covid situation, it was delayed. Accordingly, the petitioner requested the 4^th respondent for granting some more time to submit the same. However, they did not consider her request stating that the final list was already over.

¶18

In a case of Potluri Anjali, D/o Hanumantha Rao v/s. State of Andhra Pradesh¹ , wherein, it was held that, in

¶19

case, no vacancy is available in the cadre, respondents are directed to create one supernumerary post. However, the petitioner is not entitled to claim monetary benefit, as she was not appointed to the post on the principle of NO WORK – NO PAY .”

¶20

1 2022 LawSuit(AP) 80

¶21

¶22

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels, on following the above decision, directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as School Assistant (Special Education) under IEDSS under Andhra Pradesh Samagra Shiksha (SMS) in Chittoor District at appropriate roster point giving benefit of notional seniority from the date when less meritorious candidates to the petitioner are appointed. In case, no vacancy is available in the cadre, the respondents are directed to create one supernumerary post. However, the petitioner is not entitled to claim monetary benefit, as she was not appointed to the post on the principle of NO WORK- NO PAY .”

¶23

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶25

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶26

Date : 13-07-2022 Gvl

¶27

¶28

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.19289 of 2020

¶30

Date : 13.07.2022

¶31

Gvl

N.Girijamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Girijamma, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V Ratnakumar Vs State of Ap

T. Tandava Krishnamurthy Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation

Dr. G.J. Sujnana Raju, Vs The State of Ap

B. Kodanda Chetty Vs Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam

E. Rama Krishna Rao Vs The Joint Commissioner (State Tax)

B.Sivananda Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh