WP/3777/2001 of G.K.Ramachandra Chary Vs Chairman on 27 December 2006

:: O R D E R::

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri J.R.Manohar RaoCounsel for the respondents : Sri A.Satya Prasad, Special Government Pleader.

27[th] December, 2006

Per G.S. SINGHVI, C.J.

In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 28-2-2001 passed by the Andhra Pradesh AdministrativeTribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.1177 of 2001 insofar as the Tribunal declined his prayer for issue of a direction to the officialrespondents to allow him to appear in the written examination beingheld for recruitment of Additional Public Prosecutors.

It is borne out from the record that for the purpose of recruitmentof 17 Additional Public Prosecutors Grade – II, Chairman, State LevelPolice Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (respondentNo.1 herein) issued an advertisement dated 9-6-1999. The last datefor receipt of applications was 9-7-1999. The petitioner did not submitapplication within the specified time but after a gap of one year andseven months, he filed an application under Section 19 of theAdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for issue of a direction to therespondents to entertain his candidature for the post of AdditionalPublic Prosecutor and allow him to participate in the writtenexamination scheduled to be held on 4-3-2001 by claiming that onaccount of interim order dated 24-6-1999 passed by the learned SingleJudge of this Court in Writ Petition No.12770 of 1999, he could notsubmit application within time.

The Tribunal, after briefly noticing the facts, admitted theapplication, but declined the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of order dated 28-2-2001 passed by the Tribunalread as under:

“5. The learned G.P. who was directed to get instructions,contended that the Hon’ble High Court granted stay ofnotification only and it did not prevent the official respondentsfrom receiving the applications and therefore the applicationswhich have been received till 5.00 p.m. on 9-7-1999 i.e., thedue date, would be taken into consideration, and that theapplicant now cannot seek a direction to receive hisapplication and that if such a direction is given by thisTribunal, it will amount to opening a channel for all persons tofile applications who have not filed such applications after the last date stipulated in the notification and therefore theapplicant is not entitled to any relief.

6. The Notification was published in the news paper on 9-6-1999 with a direction that the applications should besubmitted not later than 5.00 p.m. on 9-7-1999. It is a fact thatsome persons approached the Hon’ble High Court and theHigh Court was pleased to stay the Notification as per thenews item which appeared on 26-6-1999. According to theapplicant, he could not submit his application because of thestay granted by the High Court. As per the version of theofficial respondents, as no stay has been granted for receivingthe applications, the applications have been received till thelast date stipulated in the Notification i.e., upto 5.00 p.m. on 9-7-1999. The learned G.P. who was directed to file an affidavitof the official respondents to the effect that they have receivedthe applications which have been sent by registered post upto5.00 p.m. on 9-7-1999, has not filed the same and has also notfiled any written reply of the official respondents, but merelystated on instructions that applications sent upto 5.00 p.m. on9-7-1999 have been received. The applicant is now comingbefore this Tribunal that he should be given an opportunity forsubmitting application to the post of Additional PublicProsecutor Grade-II as per the Notification published in thenews paper on 9-6-1999. If the request of the applicant isaccepted, it will amount to opening the entire selectionprocess, as it will enable several other persons also to submitapplications for the said posts and making it impossible for theofficial respondents to conduct the examination proposed to beheld on 4-3-2001.”

Feeling dissatisfied with the refusal of the Tribunal to grantinterim relief, the petitioner filed this petition and succeeded inpersuading the Division Bench not only to issue notice but also to passad interim order dated 2-3-2001, whereby the respondents weredirected to allow him to take the examination.

At the hearing, Sri J.R.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in compliance of the interim order passed by thisCourt, his client was allowed to take the written examination, but theresult thereof has not been declared. He then argued that on accountof interim order dated 24-6-1999 passed by the learned Single Judge,the petitioner could not submit application till the last date specified inthe advertisement and yet, the Tribunal arbitrarily declined his prayerfor interim relief. Learned counsel submitted that subsequent dismissalof the writ petition on 29-9-1999 did not have the effect of extending thedate specified in the advertisement and, therefore, the Court may directthe respondents to regularise the petitioner’s appearance in the writtenexamination.

Conclusion

In our opinion, there is no merit in the argument of the learnedcounsel and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, because orderdated 24-6-1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court inWrit Petition No.12770 of 1999 did not have the effect of preventingrespondent No.1 and officers subordinate to him to receiveapplications from the eligible candidates in pursuance ofadvertisement dated 1-6-1999. The petitioner could havesubmitted application till the last date specified in the advertisement i.e. 9-7-1999. However, the fact of the matter is that he did not chooseto file the application and moved the Tribunal at the last moment i.e.just before the date fixed for actual conduct of the examination. Thereason put-forward by the petitioner for not filing the application i.e.interim order passed by this Court on 24-6-1999, has to be treated asconcocted because there is nothing in the interim order passed by thelearned Single Judge from which it can be inferred that there was adirection to the Chairman of the Board not to entertain the applicationtill the last date specified in the advertisement. The non-seriousnesson the petitioner’s part is evinced from the fact that he did not move the Tribunal for four months after dismissal of Writ Petition No.12770 of1999. For the first time, he filed the application in the month ofFebruary, 2001 with the prayer for interim relief, which, in ourconsidered view, was rightly declined by the Tribunal.

With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.4882and 4883 of 2001 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are dismissedand interim order dated 2-3-2001 passed in WPMP.No.4882 of 2001 isvacated.

G.S.SINGHVI, C.J.

27[th] December, 2006

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.

ARS