M Divya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5408 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

M Divya, D/o. M.Vijaya Chandra Rana, age 29 years, R/o. 19-41-S51195, Jayanagar, Tirupati Urban, Chittoor District.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi - 522 503 Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District.

¶11

The Chairman, A.P. State Level Police Recruitment Board, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh,

¶12

The Co-Ordinator, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Mangalagiri Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

Nemalapalli Lavanya, , D/o. not known. Age Major,^{R/o.3rdExtension} Anantapur, Anantapur District.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent in not appointing the petitioner for the post of Assistant Public

¶16

I

¶17

Prosecutor, though the petitioner is BC-A and Non-Creamy Layer candidate, who got more marks than 4th respondent, and also selecting the 4'^ respondent who got lesser marks than the petitioner, and also rejecting the objections of the petitioner vide e-mail dt.23.02.2020 on the ground that the petitioner belong to Creamy Layer is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, violative of the principles of natural justice and also violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Public Prosecutor, in BC-A notified post vide Notification No.40/SandT/Rect./ 2019, dt.30.09 2019.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that ip the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2""^ respondent not to make appointment of 4th respondent as Assistant Public Prosecutor in BC-A notified post vide Notification No.40/S&T/Rect./ 2019 dt.30.09.2019 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D V SASIDHAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: M/s OMR LAW FIRM

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

1

¶25

APHC010089712020

¶26

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

¶27

[3310]

¶28

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 5408/2020

Between:

M Divya

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S)

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

1.DVSASIDHAR

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶41

2.0 M R LAW FIRM

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndiafor}

¶45

the following relief:

¶46

“....to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not appointing the petitioner for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor though the petitioner is BCA and Non Creamy Layer candidate who got more marks than 4th respondent and also selecting the 4th respondent who got lesser marks than the petitioner and also rejecting the objections of the petitioner vide email dt 23.02.2020 on the ground that the petitioner belong to Creamy Layer is illegal arbitrary highhanded violative of the principles of natural justice and also violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint

¶47

/

¶48

the petitioner as Assistant Public Prosecutor in BCA notified post vide Notification No 40/SandT/Rect / 2019 dt 30.09.2019 and pass

¶49

Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent herein has issued Notification vide No.40/S&T/Rect./2019, dated 30.09.2019 for the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor in the State of A.P. As per the said notification the 2'^'^ respondent herein had called for the applications from the eligible candidates through On-line mode in the prescribed proforma available on the website of the 2^^ respondent. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner has applied for the said post through online method on 28.10.2019 and also have uploaded all the documents required as per the notification i.e., caste, nativity and educational qualifications. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued the Hall ticked by the 2nd respondent vide No.95321379. Unfortunately, in the Hall Ticket issued by the 2nd respondent Board in the column of "the candidate is local to the State of A.P." it was wrongly shown as The candidate is local to the State of "Telangana" even though, she never mentioned in the application that she belongs to the State of Telangana. The said mistake was due to the server problem in the web-site of the 2nd respondent. Later, she has appeared for the examination on 17/11/2019 and she has secured 100 marks in the preliminary (Paper-1) and 74 marks in the Mains (Paper-ll). Thereafter, the 2^^ respondent Board has released the list of 94 candidates out of 495 candidates on 25.12.2009. Therefore 94 candidates were called for the interview which was scheduled from 3d to 5th January, 2020, without calling the petitioner to the interview even though, she has secured the qualified

\

3

»%y

marks. Then the petitioner has made a request to consider her case for the interview and the said request was rejected by the respondents vide e-mail dated 31 December, 2019. Challenging the said highhanded action of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.84 of 2020 before this Hon'ble Court and this Court vide orders dated 03.01.2020 had passed an interim order directing the respondents to permit her to participate in the interview process. Pursuant to the orders of this Hon'ble Court, she has submitted the representation along with the orders of this Hon'ble Court on 04.01.2020 as such the 2"^ respondent had issued call letter to her to attend for the counselling which is to be held on 05.01.2020. Pursuant to the orders of this Hon'ble Court, she has attended the interview conducted by the respondents 2 and 3 on 05.01.2020. As the petitioner has directly attended the counselling, after filing of the Writ Petition, the 2"^^ respondent asked the petitioner to furnish original certificates on 09.01.2020 for verification. Further, she was also been instructed to produce latest caste certificate and also noncreamy layer certificate as she belongs to BC-A category. As such the petitioner has obtained the latest Community, Nativity^and Date of Birth Certificate and also BC-A Non-Creamy Layer certificate from the Thasildar, Nandyal- Mandal, Kurnool District on 07.01.2020. As per the directions of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has appeared for the verification of her original certificates on 09.01.2020 along with all relevant certificates. But there was no response. Hence the present writ petition.

<br>

\

4

Heard Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶58

A

¶59

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent herein had notified the merit list for all the zones in the State of Andhra Pradesh and in the said merit list the petitioner was shown at S.No.80 as she has secured 80th rank, As per the said merit list, the total marks obtained by the petitioner were 185.1875. The 4*^ respondent herein also belongs to BC-A women category and she had secured only 156.312 marks and as such she had obtained 92 rank and was shown at S.No.92. He further submits that the 2nd respondent herein had released zone-wise provisional selection list on 18.02.2020. As per the said provisional selection list, only 16 candidates were selected out of 17 vacant posts as notified under the notification for Zone-4 but unfortunately, the 2nd respondent herein who selected the 4th respondent herein who had secured 30 marks less than the petitioner and shown her at S.No. 16 in the BC-A category reserved for women in the provisional seniority list of Zone-4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is the only eligible candidate iin the Zone-4 under BC- A category reserved for women as she secured the highest marks in the said category and she fulfilled all the requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. He further submits that the 2^^ respondent herein after publication of the provisionai seniority list called for the objections from the candidates on or before 20.02.2020 with regard to the provisional \

¶60

5

¶61

i ; \ \

¶62

selection list released by them. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent vide e-mail dt.23.02.2020 had sent a reply to the objections raised by the petitioner, where it was stated that the petitioner belong to Creamy Layer and further it was also stated that in the case of failure to produce the non-creamy layer r ( certificate on the date of verification of certificates, the candidature will be considered under Open competition and hence, the petitioner was not in the zone of consideration under BC-A category due to creamy layer. Further, the action of the 2"'^ respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for the post of APR against BC-A women category without assailing proper reasons is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶63

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Home and learned counsel for respondent No.4 opposed for allowing the writ petition. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, while directing the respondents, if at all any existing vacancies are available, to consider the case of petitioner and appoint her as Assistant Public Prosecutor in BC-A in pursuant to the Notification No.40/S&T/Rect./2019, dated 30.09.2019 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously, as possible.

¶64