Allowed

Smt Arati Jadhav, D/o Rajendra Jadhav, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented

Telangana HC11 Dec 2014WP/11203/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a selected Assistant Professor whose reserved post was cancelled by the Executive Council without providing reasons. The court held that the arbitrary rejection violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and directed the authorities to appoint the petitioner as per the Selection Committee's recommendation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; order to withdraw the decision to renotify the post and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor in Commerce adhering to the Selection Committ

Smt Arati Jadhav, D/o Rajendra Jadhav, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

*** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO**

¶2

+ WRIT PETITION No.11203 of 2014

¶3

%11.12.2014

¶4

# Smt. Arati Jadhav

¶5

….Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

$ Government of Andrha Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary, High Education Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.

¶8

…..Respondents

¶9

! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.Vinod Kumar

¶10

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for Higher Education, Sri Deepak Bhattarcharjee

¶11

<Gist :

¶12

>Head Note:

¶13

? Cases referred:

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶15

W.P.No.11203 of 2014

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in cancelling one post reserved for BC-B (W) category out of total eight posts to be appointed as Assistant Professors in Commerce in the second respondent-University, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to adhere to the recommendations of the Selection Committee in respect of Direct Recruitment of Teachers UGC RSP 2006, pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2009, dated 20.02.2009,

¶18

Re-notification dated 17.06.2010, Advertisement No.6/2010, dated 9.9.2010 and Partial Notification dated 6.2.2012.

¶19

The petitioner belongs to BC-B community. She has been working as an Assistant Professor of Commerce in Post Graduate College, Secunderabad, on contract basis, since two years. Earlier, she worked

¶20

for six years in various affiliated colleges of the 2^nd respondent-University in Commerce Department. Vide Advertisement Nos.4/2010, 5/2010 & 6/2010, dated 9.9.2010, the second respondent-University issued notification on 6.2.2012 to fill up the backlog vacancies of Assistant Professor in Commerce Department. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner applied for the said post. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent issued call letter for the interview, for which, the petitioner attended and the expert committee had made its recommendations for all the eight posts. The results were not published for quite some time. Thereafter, the results for seven posts were released and the appointment orders were issued to the candidates. The result for the post reserved for BC-B (W) category was not published. Then, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities on various occasions to find out the result in respect of the post reserved for BC-B (W), but in vain. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3306 of 2014 before this Court. Vide order dated 7.2.2014, this Court directed respondents 2 to 4 to declare the result and communicate the decision of the Executive Council to the petitioner. In compliance of the said direction, the respondent authorities vide letter dated

¶21

17.02.2014 informed the petitioner that the Executive Council at its meeting held on 18.01.2014 had not approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee for BC-B (W) post and had proposed to renotify the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce, BC-B (W) category under General Recruitment (GroupI). After receipt of the said letter, the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking reasons as to why the Executive Council had cancelled the recruitment process for the one post only. The 2^nd respondent vide letter dated 1.3.2014 communicated to the petitioner that the application of the petitioner was transferred to the Joint Registrar (PIO), Administration Branch, Osmania University, who in turn, vide letter dated 15.03.2014, had provided a list of seven candidates appointed as Assistant Professors in Commerce and also copies of the recommendations of the Selection Committee and Assessment Sheets, however, no document was provided setting out the decision of the Executive Council cancelling the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce under BC-B (W) category. As per the recommendation of the Selection Committee, eight candidates were selected for the posts of Assistant Professor in Commerce and the name of the petitioner stood at serial No.5 in the list of

¶22

selected candidates. While so, since no information was available to the petitioner in respect of the said cancellation of the post reserved for BC-B (W) category, the petitioner approached number of officials of the 2^nd respondent University and she was informed that the Executive Council had not provided any apparent reason for the cancellation of the post reserved for BC-B (W) category and there is a proposal to

¶23

re-notify the said post. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the action of the respondents for not appointing her to the post of Assistant Professor though her name was recommended by the Selection Committee.

¶24

Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 contending that on the recommendations of the Selection Committee and with the approval of the Executive Council, at its meeting held on 3.9.2013, orders were issued to seven candidates as Assistant Professors in the Department of Commerce, Osmania University. Further, the Executive Council at its meeting held on 18.01.2014 had not approved the selection of the candidate under BC-B (W) category and directed the University to renotify the said vacancy. It is further sated that the

¶25

Executive Council after detailed discussions considered the eligibility or otherwise of the candidates and accordingly decided to re-notify the post relating to BCB (W) as it found no suitable candidate under the said category. It is submitted that in exercise of statutory powers vested under Section 19 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, the Executive Council did not accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee and that there is no procedure to record detailed discussions held at the meeting, which are confidential in nature. According to the Executive Council’s decision, against eight posts, seven posts were filled up and the remaining one post is to be renotified.

¶26

There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce under BC-B (W) category and her name was also recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment. However, seven candidates were appointed, but the name of the petitioner was left out. It seems, for quiet a long time, the petitioner was not provided with the information as to why she was not appointed though she was selected by the Selection Committee as she stood at Serial No.5 in the selected

¶27

candidates list. The contention of the respondents that there is no procedure to record the detailed discussions held at the meeting, which are confidential in nature, cannot be countenanced. Even after filing of the present writ petition, the respondents did not disclose the reason as to why the Selection Committee has not considered the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce. The only contention of the respondents is that as no suitable candidate was found in BC-B (W) category, the petitioner was not selected. The respondents are under obligation to provide information for rejecting the case of the petitioner as she was selected by the Selection Committee. The petitioner has a right to know the reasons for rejection of her candidature. In the matter relating to public appointment the appointing authority is under an obligation to disclose the reasons for rejection of the candidature of an applicant who was selected by the Selection Committee. No authority can be said to have possessed such an absolute and enormous power not to disclose the reasons under the guise of confidentiality when the action of the authority is challenged in a judicial proceeding. From the manner in which the result of the petitioner was not published, the Court has to necessarily presume that

¶28

there are absolutely no valid reasons for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. The very fact that the appointing authority is unable to state the reasons even when the action is challenged in a judicial proceeding would obviously indicate that for no valid reason appointment was denied to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the manner in which the candidature of the petitioner was rejected without any valid reasons, is violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

Consequently, the respondents are directed to withdraw the decision of the Executive Council to renotify the post reserved under BC-B (W) category and appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor in Commerce under BC-B (W) category by adhering to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee.

¶30

The Writ petition is allowed accordingly.

¶31

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶32

JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶33

11^th December, 2014 rkk

¶34

Note: LR Copy to be marked.

Smt Arati Jadhav, D/o Rajendra Jadhav, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Arati Jadhav, D/o Rajendra Jadhav, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Merugu Kanakalaxmi , Kanakamma, W/o. M. Rayamallu Vs Chaiman and Managing Director

B.Narayanaiah, Driver, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Sk. Jahangir Basha sio Kalesha, aged about 37 years, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

G. Yesudas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Y.a.Ready, Vs a.P.State Road Transport Corporation

D. Sanjeeva Rao Vs The Executive Engineer Rajendranagar Circle -Vi