Tanneru Nagaratna Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

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 a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not awarding weightage marks to the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Village Agriculture Assistant in pursuance of

¶20

Notification No. 1/2019 dated 26.07.2019, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to AP State and Subordinate Service Rules and Articles 14, 16 and 19(g),Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to consider case of the Petitioner and pass.

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

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 consider case of the Petitioner and pass.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.KALAKOTI SUNIL KUMAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

¶30

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not awarding weightage marks to the petitioner for appointment to the post of Village Agriculture Assistant in pursuance of notification No.1/2019 dated 26.07.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules and Articles 14, 16 and 19 (g) of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders.….”

¶31

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner under Para No.15 of the notification dated 26.07.2019. According to the notification, the persons who work in the department as MPEO/MIAO/Field Consultant/Contract & Outsourcing Horticulture Officer in the Department of Horticulture will be given 1.5 marks for completion of every six (06) months and maximum of 15 marks.

¶32

In the instant case, the petitioner has two years experience and accordingly, he is entitled for weightage marks as per Para No.15 of the notification but for the reasons best known, the respondents have not considered the certificate of the petitioner issued by General Manager (Admin.) Andhra Pradesh Greening and Beautification Corporation. The said Andhra Pradesh Greening and Beautification Corporation is a Government Organization. Hence the respondents ought to have considered the case of

¶33

the petitioner by granting weightage marks for appointment of petitioner as Village Agriculture Assistant.

¶34

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of respondents has made their submissions based on the averments made in the Writ Petition and the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, more specifically at Para No.9, wherein it is stated that the certificate issued by the Andhra Pradesh Greening and Beautification Corporation is not in accordance with the notification. It is further stated that as per Para No.15 of the notification, the service certificate should be issued by the Deputy Director of Horticulture / Project Director, APMIP / Assistant Director of Horticulture of the District concerned, but, in the instant case, the petitioner has placed a certificate issued by General Manager (Admin.) of Andhra Pradesh Greening and Beautification Corporation which is not in accordance with the terms of notification.

¶35

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I and upon perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit of respondent No.4, it is evident that Para No.15 of the notification dated 26.07.2019, clearly stipulates that service certificates must be obtained by the authorities mentioned therein, for granting weightage marks. In the instant case, where the petitioner has not obtained the service certificates from the authorities mentioned therein, the

¶36

same cannot be equated and cannot be entitled to consider the same for

¶37

weightage marks.

¶38

With regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that in certain other cases, the Commission of Horticulture has considered and granted weightage marks vide letter dated 29.09.2019 and that the same benefit may be extended to the petitioner.

¶39

In view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, is of the view that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned authorities and obtain the relevant certificate. Upon such approach, the authorities shall consider the petitioner’s request based on the record and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶40