WP/26904/2006 of Dr.Syed Raza Mehdi, Vs the Special Commissioner, Information and Public on 27 December 2006

:: JUDGMENT ::

Counsel for the petitioner

Sri M.V.Satya Prasad for SriP.Saimangapathy Counsel for respondent Nos.1to 3Counsel for respondent No.4

Government Pleader for Informationand Public Relations Sri M.Vijay Kumar 27.12.2006

Per G.S.Singhvi, CJ.

In this petition filed as public interest litigation, Dr. Syed RazaMehdi, who has described himself as a journalist, has prayed for issueof a direction to official respondents to order an independent enquirythrough the State Police in the matter of alleged illegal appointment ofrespondent No.4 – A.L.Kismath Kumar as District Public RelationOfficer and take further action in the matter.

In the affidavit filed by him, the petitioner has referred toG.O.Ms.No. 886, dated 11.6.1996 whereby the State Governmentprescribed the qualifications for the post of District Public RelationOfficer and pleaded that even though respondent No. 4 was notpossessing the prescribed qualification, he succeeded in gettinghimself selected by producing fake certificate regarding hisexperience. Along with the affidavit, the petitioner has annexed copyof letter dated 11.8.2005 sent by Secretary, Bar Council of State ofAndhra Pradesh to Sri V. Subhash, Joint Director, InformationDepartment to show that respondent No. 4 was enrolled as anAdvocate on 8.4.1982 and he got enrolment suspended on 25.9.1984.

Sri M.V.Satya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner arguedthat respondent No. 4 did not have five years experience in planpublicity or information and public relation and, as such, he was noteligible to be appointed as District Public Relation Officer, but hemanipulated his selection by producing fake experience certificate. Learned counsel strongly relied on certificate dated 11.8.2005 andargued that a person, who was enrolled as Advocate, could not claimexperience in plan publicity or information and public relations. Learned counsel pointed out that respondent No.4 was enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh on8.4.1982 and got the same suspended on 25.9.1984 and, therefore, hecould not have been treated eligible for recruitment as District PublicRelation Officer in the year 1984.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel, buthave not felt persuaded to entertain the writ petition. Rather, we areconvinced that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed summarilybecause:

i)The petitioner has not produced any tangible evidencebefore the Court to show that respondent No.4 had securedappointment to the post of District Public Relation Officer inthe year 1984 by producing fake certificate. He has not evenbothered to produce the order by which respondent NO.4was appointed as District Public Relation Officer in the year1984.

ii)The petitioner has not explained the long gap of 22 yearsbetween the appointment of respondent No.4 as DistrictPublic Relation Officer and filing of this petition. He claims tobe an experienced journalist of 30 years standing. If that beso, it is difficult to comprehend as to how he could beoblivious of the alleged irregularity in the appointment ofrespondent No.4 in 1984 in the department with which thepetitioner is directly concerned. Indeed, it is neither thepleaded case of the petitioner nor the learned counsel hasargued that the petitioner was practising journalism outsidethe State of Andhra Pradesh till 2005 and he acquiredknowledge about the alleged irregularity in the appointmentof respondent No.4 only in the year 2005.

iii)It appears to us that the petitioner has filed this petition as

a shadow litigation on behalf of the competitor of respondentNo.4 who could not get the appointment to the post ofDirector, Public Relations, Andhra Pradesh. This inferenceis being drawn by us because the certificate produced by thepetitioner as exhibit P.3 is a copy of communication sent bythe Secretary, Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh toV.Subhash, Joint Director, Information Department,Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The petitionerhas not shown his nexus or connection with V.Subash. It istherefore reasonable to infer that the present writ petition hasbeen filed for espousing the cause of the person who maynot have been able to get him promoted to the post ofDirector of Information.

With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition,W.P.M.P.No.34569 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief isalso dismissed.

G.S.SINGHVI, CJ

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J