Dismissed

B.Uma Maheswara Reddy v. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

Telangana HC16 Aug 2017WP/27256/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Group-I candidate challenging his ineligibility due to a typographical error in an examination question. The Court upheld the Administrative Tribunal's dismissal, ruling that the petitioner's delayed objection due to residence in a semi-rural area did not establish valid laches exceptions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and the interim originating application were dismissed as infructuous.

B.Uma Maheswara Reddy Vs The Andhra Pradesh Public… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

¶2

Writ Petition No.27256 of 2017

¶3

DATED:16-08-2017

¶4

Between:

¶5

B. Uma Maheswara Reddy … Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Represented by its Secretary Nampally Hyderabad and another … Respondents

¶8

COUNSEL FOR THE PEITITONER: Mr. K. Raghavendra Venkatesh

¶9

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1: Sri M. Surender Rao, for Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2: G.P. for General Administration (AP)

¶10

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

CVNR, J & GSP, J WP 27256/2017

¶12

¶13

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶14

The applicant in O.A. No.2253 of 2017 filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by order dt.03.08.2017 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶15

The petitioner appeared for preliminary examination for recruitment to various posts of Group-I Services in pursuance of Notification No.36 of 2016, dt.30.12.2016 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC). He filed the aforementioned O.A. with the grievance that Question No.101 was defective, as, the name of the organisation, namely, ‘Public Health Foundation of India’ was wrongly shown as ‘Public Health Federation of India’. He has pleaded that as the question carried negative marks, he could not attempt to answer the question. He has further pleaded that as against cut off marks of 55.1, he got 54.42 marks and that if the said question was disallowed, he would have got qualified for preparing for main examination.

¶16

On the instructions of the respondents, the learned Standing Counsel for the APPSC has argued before the Tribunal that the petitioner failed to submit his objections within the stipulated time and that when similar objections were raised to question No.101, the Expert Committee has opined that the mistake is not fatal as there is no organization with the name Public Health Federation of India and that therefore there was no reason for the candidates to get confused. It was also pleaded on behalf of the respondents that the O.A. suffers from laches as the petitioner approached the Tribunal two months after the final key was issued and after the results were declared. On consideration of the respective pleadings of the parties and the submissions of the learned counsel representing before it, the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A.

¶17

CVNR, J & GSP, J WP 27256/2017

¶18

¶19

The fact that several candidates have sent their objections in prescribed format including the objections relating to question No.101 is not disputed by the petitioner. The only explanation offered by the petitioner for not submitting his explanation within the stipulated time is that he is staying in a semi rural area in Prakasam District and he was also preparing for Group-II Examination. In our opinion, this reason is not acceptable. In view of the availability of modern communication facilities even in small rural areas, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the ground that he was disabled as he was staying in a semi rural area. Having not raised his objection within the stipulated time, the petitioner is not entitled to question the correctness of the decision of the APPSC. In fact, the disputed question was referred to an Expert Committee which gave the following opinion:

¶20

“The word should be ‘Foundation’, but not ‘Federation’.

¶21

The event is recent. The minor error in word does not alter the meaning much. From the objection itself, it is clear that he understands the identity of the organization. Hence objection is incorrect.”

¶22

We do not find any reason to differ with the Expert Committee’s opinion on the disputed question. The Tribunal for germane reasons dismissed the O.A. and we do not find any reason to interfere with the said order.

¶23

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶24

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.33850 of

¶25

2017 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶26

¶27

C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶28

_________________________ GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J

¶29

16-8-2017 bnr

¶30

CVNR, J & GSP, J WP 27256/2017

¶31

B.Uma Maheswara Reddy v. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Uma Maheswara Reddy v. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

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

Md. Shafiuddin, Vs The Superintendent of Police

Borra Adelu, Vs The Prl.Secretary to Government, Environment, Forest

Union of India Vs Mohd.Iqbal

Kavampalli Kannamma , Kanakamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.John Jayakar, S/o John, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., Vs B.Bala Swamy S/o B.Tirupathi Rao, 51 years, E. 360325