Disposed

G.Seetaramaiah v. The Apgenco

Telangana HC13 Dec 2011WP/29605/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court drafted an order in a writ petition challenging the reduction of the petitioner's exam marks and denial of selection. The court found the respondents failed to assign reasons for the reduction and did not address the representation, ordering them to reconsider the case.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by directing respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the receipt of the order copy.

G.Seetaramaiah Vs The Apgenco — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 29605 OF 2011

¶6

Between: G.Seetharamaiah … Petitioner V/s The APGENCO Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt. K.Rajyalakshmi Counsel for the Respondents : Sri C. Raghu The Court made the following : Order follows next page

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 29605 OF 2011

¶9

O R D E R :

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶11

counsel for the respondents.

¶12

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for the issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in reducing the marks awarded to the petitioner and in selecting the candidates with lesser marks than the petitioner and denying the petitioner’s selection to the post of Trainee Sub-Engineer (Civil Engineering Branch) notified vide Notification No. 4/CGM/Admn/2010, dated 05-1-2011 inspite of the petitioner being more meritorious, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Trainee Sub-Engineer as per the original merit list secured by him.

¶13

3. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification dated 05-01-2011 issued by the respondents he made an application to the post of Sub-Engineer and attended for the relevant test. Consequently in the scrutiny of the examination of the petitioner, the petitioner was awarded the following marks:

¶14

17 + 10 + 10 + 30.5 = 67.05

¶15

Accordingly the respondents have issued the list containing marks

¶16

secured under weighted average vide Hall Ticket No. 11010676. Thereafter, the respondents have finalized the merit list wherein the petitioner has been shown that he secured marks, after total verification, 62.50. Therefore, questioning the action of the respondents in reducing five marks, the present writ petition is filed.

¶17

4. This Court while issuing notice before admission on 05-11-2011 adjourned the matter at the request of the learned standing counsel and also passed an order directing the respondents that the respondents shall verify the marks secured by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a week. No order has been passed by the respondents pursuant to the said order of this court but they filed counter affidavit.

¶18

5. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated in para No.6 that during the period 2003-04 the petitioner worked only for 76 days and the EPF slips also pertains to the said period since the duration for which the petitioner has worked as contract labour is only for 76 days. It is further averred that though he was awarded 67.05 marks by way of weighted average marks. But after due verification, it was found that in the final list he secured 62.50 and 5 marks less and the petitioner belongs to BC ‘D” community and he secured only 62.5 marks in the final merit list. The cut off marks of BC “D” community of Zone-2 are 65.83, which are higher than the marks secured by the candidate. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

¶19

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

¶20

filed all the material papers showing 76 days in which the petitioner worked

¶21

during the period 2003-04 and the relevant certificates issued by the Office of the Provident Fund Commissioner.

¶22

7. Having regard to the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no justification in reducing 5 marks, having found that the petitioner secured 67.05 marks.

¶23

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that basing on the record submitted by the petitioner through online, the application of the petitioner was scrutinized and though initially award marks basing on the service particulars furnished along with application, subsequently the scrutiny committee on verification found that he is entitled to only 62.05 marks. Therefore, five marks were reduced.

¶24

9. No reasons have been assigned by the respondents in the counter-affidavit as to why five marks have been reduced and on the representation filed by the petitioner, no order has been passed. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

_________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH. 13-12-2011 I s L

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO. 29605 OF 2011

¶28

CIRCULATION NO. DATE 13-12-2011 COURT MASTER : I s L Computer No. 43.

G.Seetaramaiah v. The Apgenco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Seetaramaiah v. The Apgenco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch. Sai Babu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B. Mohan Murali Vs Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences

Palagada. Narasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Mr. M. Nagabhushanam Vs Andhra PRadesh Social Welfare Residential

No.065026813 G.D Constable Recruit Vs Sri C.S.Rao, Deputy Inspector General of Police

Pratosh Kumar Tiwari Vs Sri C.S. Rao