Dismissed

The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, v. K. Panduranga Reddy

Telangana HC12 Apr 2017WP/16034/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission aggrieved by the Administrative Tribunal directing appointment of a visually handicapped candidate following another candidate's non-joining. The Court expunged 'fishy' remarks against the Commission and vacated the interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition, expunging adverse remarks against the Commission, and vacating the interim suspension order.

The Andhra Pradesh Public Service… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE GUDI SEVA SHYAM PRASAD

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON No.16034 of 2015

¶3

ORDER : (per SK,J)

¶4

The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2014 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.2968 of 2013. By the said order, the Tribunal directed the Commission to consider the case of the applicant in the O.A., the first respondent herein, for appointment to the post of Assistant Statistical Officer against the vacancy meant for visually handicapped which was still vacant.

¶5

By order dated 10.06.2015, this Court granted interim suspension of the order under challenge.

¶6

W.V.M.P.No.2494 of 2015 was filed by the first respondent to vacate the aforestated order.

¶7

Heard Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the petitionerCommission, and Sri Madiraju Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶8

Perusal of the order under challenge reflects that the initial selection of the first respondent herein to the post under the visually handicapped reservation category was revised by the Commission on the ground that another visually handicapped candidate, T.V.V.Satyanarayana, who secured 151 marks as against 122 marks secured by the first respondent, was inadvertently not taken into consideration for the said category. It was on this basis that Corrigendum dated 17.04.2013 was issued by the Commission cancelling the selection of the first respondent and selecting the said T.V.V.Satyanarayana in his

¶9

¶10

place. The Tribunal however was not persuaded to agree with the contention of the Commission. So much so, the Tribunal went to the extent of categorising the manner in which T.V.V.Satyanarayana was included at a later stage as very fishy. Having found so, the Tribunal took note of the fact that T.V.V.Satyanarayana did not choose to join the post despite belated selection thereto by the Commission and accordingly directed the Commission to appoint the first respondent to the post treating it as a non-joining vacancy.

¶11

In the light of the aforestated facts, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for with the order passed by the Tribunal in so far as it directs accommodation of the first respondent in the post consequent upon T.V.V.Satyanarayana choosing not to join duty. It can hardly be disputed that the vacancy caused by the failure on the part of T.V.V.Satyanarayana to take up the offer of appointment would be a nonjoining vacancy, in terms of the judgments laid down by the Supreme Court in Manoj Manu v. Union of I ndia¹ and Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers Association v. State of Gujarat² .

¶12

The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

We however find that the observation of the Tribunal that the action undertaken by the Commission was fishy is not proper as there is no evidence of the Commission having gone out of its way to favour T.V.V.Satyanarayana. All the more so, as T.V.V.Satyanarayana did not even choose to join the post after his selection thereto. The adverse remarks recorded by the Tribunal against the Commission are therefore expunged from the order.

¶14