Allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its v. Bipul Sikdar

Telangana HC25 Mar 2014WP/6737/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Court allowed a Writ Petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order. The Tribunal had directed the State to consider O.C. category candidates for posts reserved for STs under DSC-2008. The Court held that posts reserved for STs cannot be filled without official de-reservation and re-notification, declaring the Tribunal's order illegal and perverse.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal directing the consideration of O.C. category candidates for reserved ST posts is quashed.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.6737 of 2013

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 23-01-2012 in O.A.No.1255 of 2009 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and to quash or set aside the same.

¶6

2. Heard both sides.

¶7

3. The respondents herein filed O.A.No.1255 of 2009 praying the Tribunal to declare that the respondents herein are entitled for selection and appointment to the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (Bengali) notified in DSC-2008 in Adilabad District in terms of orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.100 Education (SE-SER.VII) Department, dated 05-08-2005 with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the petitioners herein in not considering their claim for selection and appointment to the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (Bengali) as illegal. The said O.A. was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 herein to consider the case of the respondents herein and pass appropriate orders by keeping in view of the earlier dereservation ordered vide G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 05-08-2005. If at all the reserved category posts are de-reserved, the case of the respondents herein be considered according to the merit reflected in DSC-2008 and appropriate orders of de-reservation be passed

¶8

by the Government within two months from the date of receipt of copy of that order.

¶9

4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that originally the two posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (Bengali) were notified and as per the notification, only Scheduled Tribe candidates are eligible to apply. The Secondary Grade Teacher (Bengali) as notified on 06-12-2008 is only two posts but in view of errata, posts were increased to 8. Admittedly, the respondents herein do not belong to Scheduled Tribe category and they belong to O.C. category. Admittedly, no post of Secondary Grade Teacher (Bengali) was notified in O.C. post category. When the competent authority refused to receive the applications to the said posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (Bengali) in pursuance of DSC-2008, the Original Application was filed. Interim order was given by the Tribunal permitting the petitioners herein to receive the applications of the respondents herein and participate in the selection process.

¶10

5. In view of the fact that all the posts were notified for Scheduled Tribe candidates only, even in the absence of suitable Scheduled Tribe candidates the respondents herein cannot be appointed for the posts notified for a Scheduled Tribe candidates. The question of de-reservation of the posts and considering the case of the respondents herein does not arise. Unless the posts are de-reserved and again notified, the case of the respondents herein cannot be considered if they come up in the selection process. Therefore, the impugned order is totally perverse in view of the fact that in the first instance the Government has to issue a notification for de-reserving the posts in terms of Rule 22 of A.P. State and Subordinate Rules, 1996. After de-reserving the posts,

¶11

those posts have to be notified again calling for applications from eligible candidates. That procedure has not been followed. So, when the posts are not de-reserved and notified again, the order of the Tribunal is illegal, perverse and is liable to be set aside.

¶12

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. However, any observation made in this Writ Petition is only for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

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

¶14

______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶15

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶16

March 25, 2014

¶17

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND

¶19

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.6737 of 2013

¶21

March 25, 2014

¶22

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its v. Bipul Sikdar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its v. Bipul Sikdar

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

The Union of India, Vs B.N.Singh S/o. Brahmadeo Singh

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Smt. P. Varalaxmi

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Principal Vs L. Tirupathi

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Smt.K.Prameela, D/o.F,noch, aged about 57 years

The Municipal Commissioner, Vs K. Chandra Rao, Occ Public Health Workers

Sri Venkateswara Entertainments Ltd. Vs The Authorised Officer