Dismissed

Kattubadi Hussain Miah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Dec 2023WP/30921/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their disqualification from a police recruitment process due to alleged irregularities in the physical efficiency test regarding the absence of a sensor for the 100 meters event. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners had missed the written examination and could not seek a rehearing for comparative evaluation tests.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition to declare the physical test action illegal and to direct re-conduction of the written examination is dismissed.

Kattubadi Hussain Miah Vs the State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 30921 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kattubadi Hussain Miah, S/o K Madar Saheb, R/o 1-101, Kaila Colony Near Ambedkar Statue, Slater Peta, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

¶8

Vinod Kumar Kandukuri,, S/o Raju Kandukuri, R/o 1-101 Kaila Colony, Near Ambedkar Statue Slater Peta, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

¶9

...PETITIONER{S)

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary,^Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶12

State Level Police Recruitment Board of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Chairman, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh

¶13

The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Mangalagiri Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or orders Writ Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent no.2 and their subordinates in not following the procedures adhered while conducting physical efficiency test to the petitioners by not placing sensor on the starting point in the 100 meters event pursuant to recruitment notification vide Rc. No. 163/SLPRB/Rect. 1/2022 dated 28.11.2022 which results in disgualification of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of article 14, 16 and 19 of constitution of India and conseguently direct the respondents to conduct the events to the petitioners. lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to re-conduct the events to the petitioners by considering the mail / representation dated 27.09.2023 made by the them and forward the petitioners to mains examination if they are gualified for the same pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶17

¶18

Counsel for the Petltioner(s) : SRI. R S MANIDHAR PINGALI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : SRI G.V.S. KISHORE KUMAR, GP FOR SERVICES-I

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.30921 OF 2023

¶23

ORAL ORDER:

¶24

Heard Sri R.S. Manidhar Pingali, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar,^Learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has submitted that Petitioner No.l had undertaken 100 Meters Running Test on 16.09.2023 and that his result was^also declared on the same day to the effect that Petitioner^No.l has not qualified himself in the said test. Petitioner^No.2 had undertaken 100 Meters Running Test on 09.09.2023 and on the same date, the result has been declared^tothe effect that the Petitioner No.2 has not been qualified^inthe said test. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that Petitioner No.2 has submitted a Representation on 27.09.2023 (Ex.P.2) to the Authorities. He also^submits that the Petitioners could not appear in the Written Examination that was conducted by the Official Respondents on 14.10.2023 on account of their

¶26

¶27

disqualification as well as pendency of their Representation. On 27.09.2023, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶28

When this matter was listed on 30.11.2023, having considered the chronological sequence of events, this^Court has directed the Petitioners to justify the case on grounds of delay and laches in as much as the Written Examination was already conducted on 14.10.2023 for all the participants and admittedly, the Writ Petitioners were^not permitted to the Written Examination on account of their disqualification.

¶29

Today, during the course of the hearing, Sri R.S. Manidhar Pingali, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has relied on the Judgment of the Apex^Court titled “The Chairman, State Bank of India and Anr. Vs. M.J. James (Civil Appeal No.8223 of 2009, dated 16.11.2021)”. Learned Counsel relies on Para No.28 of the said Judgment on the proposition that the Respondents should not take the defence of laches and delay if^there is inaction on the part of the Authorities and that such delay and laches shall not enure to the disadvantage of the^Writ Petitioner.

¶30

¶31

¶32

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case cited by the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, this Court is not in agreement with the submissions^made by the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners. The proposition of law as enunciated by the HonT)le Supreme Court in “The Chairman, State Bank of India and Anr. Vs. M.J. James (Civil Appeal No.8223 of 2009, dated 16.11.202ir does not apply to the facts of the present case in as much as the chronology of facts have already been narrated hereinabove.

¶33

The crucial stage in the Petitioners’ case is the Written Examination that was conducted by the Official Respondents on 14.10.2023. Whereas, the Petitioner^No.l underwent the Running Test on 16.09.2023 and Petitioner No.2 underwent the Running Test on 09.09.2023. On the date of conduct of the Test itself, both the Writ Petitioners were declared to be disqualified. Petitioner No.2 has submitted his Representation on 27.09.2023. Whether^the Respondents have responded on the Representation dated 27.09.2023 or not, the burden would lie on the aggrieved party to come before the Court well within time to seek

¶34

¶35

appropriate relief and / or Interim Relief permitting the Petitioners to appear in the Written Examination during^the pendency of the Writ Petition and during the pendency^of the consideration of the cause espoused by them. Written Examination is a public Admittedly, the examination which is conducted for all the qualified individuals. In the present situation, even if the Writ Petitioners would succeed in the present cause as regards the manner in which the Running Test was conducted^by the Official Respondents, the common Written Examination which is already held for several hundreds of candidates cannot be re-conducted by the Official Respondents^forthe sake of two individuals in as much as the Written Examination is evaluated on comparative basis. 7. This Court is of the view that the Petitioners have missed the bus by sleeping over their rights while^thedate for the Written Examination has passed by and therefore, even if the Writ Petitioners succeed in the present Writ Petition, the clock cannot be put back. In this view^ofthe matter, there is no merit in the present Writ Petition.

¶36

¶37

/ /

¶38