WP/24247/2004 of G. Raju, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2004

1. G. Raju, S/o. Late G. Santha Bhushanam Aged about 36 years, Occu: Unemployee,Chettunnapadu (post) Bhimadole Mandal,West Godavari District.

2. G. Prameela, D/o. G. Venkaiah, 30 yrs,Occu: Unemployee, H.No.26-10-84, Near Old Police Station, Nagaram Palem, Guntur.

3. T.J.S.R. Kumari, D/o. Bazaru, 25 yrs.

Unemployee, Badampudi Post, Unguturu Mandal, West Godavari District.

4. Naresh Jadhav, D/o. Govardhan, 27 yrs.

Unemployee, Room No.26, New P.G. Hostel, Osmania University Campus, Hyderabad.

5. Sugali Anusuya, D/o. S. Humalal, 28 yrs, Community Helath Centre, H.No.2

Gooty Post, Anantapur District.6. D. Shashikala, D/o. Pandurangaswamy, 34 yrs,Unemployee, C/o. Lakshmi, 1[st] ADM Court,Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.7. SVD Prasad, S/o. Bhadru, 25 yrs,Unemployee C/o.K.Narasaiah,1-1-750/8 Gandhinagar, Hyderabad.8. M. Sujatha, D/o. Bhadru 25 yrsUnemployee, H.No.16-1-0/1/A,Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad.

AND

..... PETITIONERS

1. Government of A.P. rep., by its Secretary,General Administration Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad.2. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep., by its Secretary, Gruhakalpa,Mukarramjahi Road, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Ceritiorari (1)Call for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 15.12.2004passed in O.A.No.6585 of 2004 by the Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal,Hyderabad and quash or set aside the same holding it as unsustainable; (2) Declarethe action of the Public Service Commission in not following the rule of reservationat the screening level in accordance with Rule 22 and 22-A of the A.P. State andSubordinate Service Rules as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable; and (3) Direct therespondents to admit the candidates to the main written examination for Group-IServices in pursuance of the notification No.21 of 2003 on 28.3.2004 and in pursuance of the Suplementary Notification No.6 of 2004 on 10-10-2004 in the ratioof 1:50 duly following the rule of reservation from the Screening list level inaccordance with the Rule-2 and 22-A of the A.P. State and Subordinate ServiceRules, and pass such other and further order or orders as are deemed fit and properin the circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.NUTY RAM MOHAN RAO

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:- (PER GB,J.)

The Writ Petition is filed assailing the order, dated 15.12.2004 passed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 6585 of 2004.

2. The matter relates to recruitment to Group I Services. The A.P.P.S.C. issuednotification in Advertisement No.21 of 2003 calling applications for Group I Services.Initially it notified 302 vacancies under the General Category and 7 vacancies underLimited Recruitment. Thereafter, another supplemental notification was issued on7.8.2004 wherein the vacancies were enhanced, and total recruitment was sought to be made for 531 vacancies under the General Category and 7 under limitedrecruitment. The preliminary screening test was conducted, and the written test isscheduled to be held from 19.1.2005 onwards. Some of the candidates, who werenot called for the written test, though they qualified in the preliminary test belongingto reserved categories approached the Tribunal contending that their representationwas not properly worked out, and as a result, they are being deprived of opportunityto participate in the selection process.

3. The Tribunal after considering the matter, relying on the G.O. Ms. No.570, dated31.12.1997 issued by the Government, wherein procedure for recruitment to Group IServices was prescribed, negatived the claim of the applicants holding that there isno reservation provided at the stage of preliminary selection. Aggrieved by the saidorder, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nooty Ram Mohan Rao appearing for the petitionerssubmits that the action of the Public Service Commission in making recruitment tovarious reserved categories is contrary to the policy of the Government. He submitsthat 1:50 ratio is not being maintained in all the reserved categories, thereby themeritorious candidates under the reserved categories are tending to lose the chanceof appearing for the written examination. He submits that out of the candidates whowere already called for written test, the representation of the reserved categoriesdoes not conform to the 1:50 ratio, and it is less in some categories, and therefore,he submits that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. He further submitsthat at least the candidates to the extent of 1:50 ratio, including the candidatesalready qualified to appear for the main examinations have to be called for and theircase for selection should be considered only after exhausting the selectedcandidates in respect of the posts which remain vacant. Therefore, he submits thatno prejudice would be caused to the O.C. candidates or to the process itself.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Vijay Kumar appearing for theA.P.P.S.C. submits that the procedure prescribed in the G.O. has not beenchallenged by the petitioners. Further, the learned counsel would submit that similaridentical issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in S.JAFEERSAHEB v SECRETARY, GAD SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD wherein it is held that admission to the main examination should only be on the ranking secured in thepreliminary examination, irrespective of the caste or backwardness of the candidatesappearing for the examination because all of them are competing for the posts in theopen competition also. He further submits that he categorically assures this Courtthat A.P.P.S.C. would adopt the process as contemplated in the G.O. There will notbe any spill over vacancies for the reserved candidates and that there may not beany fall out vacancies. Thus, he submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite legaland valid.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that recruitment for Group I posts is being taken up byA.P.P.S.C. and it is also admitted before this Court that about 531 vacanciesbelonging to general category and 7 under limited recruitment category, would befilled up subject to community-wise reservation in the General Category.

8. Learned counsel for the A.P.P.S.C. on the directions of this Court has furnishedthe following approximate ratio in the reserved categories:

Sl.No.CommunityCategoryNo.No.Approx.RatioofvacanciesofCandidatescalledformain exam1.BC-AGeneral2821661:772.BC-AWomen132771:213.BC-BGeneral3045741:1504.BC-BWomen176141:355.BC-CGeneral54211:806.BC-CWomen11221:1007.BC-DGeneral2436261:1508.BC-DWomen125341:449.SCGeneral5433241:6010.SCWomen266171:2311STGeneral235971:2512.STWomen101061:10

9. Further, it is noted that total number of candidates numbering 28,865 are beingcalled for written examination scheduled to be held on 19.1.2005 and the hall tickets

have already been issued, necessary preparations have already been made. Fromthe above statement, it is seen that the ratio is less than 1:50 in respect of BC-AWomen, BC-B Women, BC-D Women, SC Women, ST General and ST Women.The contention of the learned counsel for the A.P.P.S.C. is that in the case of S.Cs.,S.Ts., even if they get lesser marks than prescribed, their case will be consideredbasing on their performance both in written and oral competitive examination. Thefollowing is the extract from the note furnished:

“In the event of S.C. and S.T. candidates not coming up for selection with theexisting minimum prescribed for the selection in the competitive examinationconducted by the Commission, their selection shall be considered on thebasis of rank with reference to their performance in the written and oralcompetitive examination”.

10. Thus, he submits that the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal orcontrary to law.

11. We have given serious consideration to this aspect. Firstly, in the G.O. theprocedure has been set out calling for the candidates in the ratio of 1:50 and it hasbeen specifically stated that this 1:50 ratio is without reference to the communities,and it is as follows:

“There will be a screening test (Objective type) comprising General Studiesand mental ability. This test is admitted to the written examination i.e.,consisting of;

A. COMPULSORY SUBJECTS:

1. Essay 2. General English 3. General Studies and

B. OPTIONAL SUBJECTS: (Two Optionals): First optional paper I & II (Items4 & 5). Second optional paper I & II (Items 6 & 7). The marks secured in thescreening test will not be counted for ranking. The number of candidates to beadmitted to the written examination (Conventional Type) would be 50 (fifty)times to the total number of vacancies available at material time irrespectiveof communities.”

12. Admittedly, the G.O. has not been challenged, and if 1:50 ratio has to bedisturbed, it equally amounts flagrant violation of the procedure prescribed therein.The purpose of holding a screening test is to ensure the basic standard of eligibilityof the candidates and even at the stage of admission to the main examination the rule of reservation of posts cannot be applied. Moreover, the learned counsel forA.P.P.S.C. assures this Court that the vacancies notified for reserved categories willbe filled up out of the candidates who appeared for the test even if the candidatessecure less marks than prescribed, and no post will be carried forward to the nextrecruitment. He also submits that out of 28,865 candidates who are takingexamination on 19.1.2005, 16,980 candidates belong to the reserved categories andonly about 11,000 who constitute less than 45% are being represented under O.C.category.

13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that at least the ratioof 1:50 should be maintained in respect of each post reserved for communityreservation for in such an event, it will enable the reserved candidates to effectivelyparticipate in the selection and candidates from out of them would be selected withinthe reservation category, but this contention though appears to be appealing, cannotbe accepted. There cannot be any upper limit. If this has to be taken intoconsideration, then 1:50 ratio should be considered to be appropriate andreasonable, and inasmuch as it is assured by the A.P.P.S.C. that there will not beany carry forward vacancies, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passedby the Tribunal.

14. Accordingly, we find no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed.

15. With this direction the O.A. shall stands disposed of.

__________________

G. BKISHAPATHY, J.

______________________

B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

ES

To

1. The Secretary, Government of A.P.

General Administration Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Gruhakalpa, Mukarramjahi Road, Hyderabad.

3 2 CCs to the G.P. for Services II, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).

4 2 CD copies.