The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the inaction of the 1st Respondent regarding alleged irregularities and mass copying in recruitment examinations. The court held that such factual inquiries are within the domain of authorities and cannot be entertained in a writ proceeding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO:31553 OF 2011.
DATE:01.12.2011
BETWEEN:
DR.PULLAIAH CHEEPI & OTHERS.
…PETITIONERS
AND
A.P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & OTHERS
…RESPONDENTS
THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO:31553 OF 2011.
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of 1st respondent in not taking any action with regard to the various irregularities committed in the process of conducting the examinations in respect of recruitment to the post of Lecturers in Economics in Government Degree Colleges in A.P Collegiate Education Service, pursuant to the Notification No:12/2009, dated 13.10.2009 Supplemental Notification No:16/2010,
dated 7.10.2010 despite bringing it to the notice of the 1st respondent about the irregularities and mass copying and though the said issue was widely published in the newspapers, as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to issue fresh notification in so far as the posts of Lecturers in Economics is concerned and to conduct the examination in accordance with the procedure and law.
The case of the petitioners is that they are possessing requisite qualification for recruitment to the post of Lecturers and in pursuance of the notification No:12/2009, dated 13.10.2009 issued by the 1st respondent, they have submitted their individual applications and subsequently, due to the postponement of the examinations, a supplemental notification was issued on 7.10.2010 vide notification No:16/2010. On 14.8.2011, the examination was held and they have also appeared for the examination. At that time, the question papers supplied to the candidates is identical and common and therefore, the procedure has not been following by grouping the question papers as A, B, C and D only for the purpose of avoiding mass copying. The 4th respondent who is the Committee Member in collusion with the authorities of the 1st respondent for extraneous considerations, had allotted a single center to all of the students who pursued their studies under him (4th respondent) and thereby, the mass copying took place and ultimately, all the students of the 4th respondent became successful in the examinations. The aspect of mass copying was also published in all the reputed newspapers, but no action has been taken by the 1st
respondent. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
The question as to whether such irregularities as alleged by the petitioners, had occurred or not, is only a mere allegation, which is no doubt within the domain of the authorities to examine the truth or otherwise of the same and as such, the same cannot be entertained in a proceedings of this nature invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition, which is misconceived, is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
__________________ Justice G.Chandraiah.
Date:01.12.2011
Gurc.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO:31553 OF 2011.
DATE:01.12.2011
2 issues framed by the court
Whether allegations of irregularities in recruitment examinations can be adjudicated upon in a writ petition under Article 226.
Whether a writ petition alleging inaction regarding recruitment irregularities is maintainable when the truth of allegations falls within the domain of authorities.
Dr. Pullaiah Cheepi & Others
A.P Public Service Commission & Others
G. Chandraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
