WP/5815/2001 of Akula Venkata Bhaskara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh on 26 December 2006

:: O R D E R ::

Counsel for the petitioners : Shri A. SatyanarayanaCounsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for Home Dated: 26.12.2006

Per G.S.SINGHVI, CJ

In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to cancel the written examination heldon 04.03.2001 for recruitment of Additional Public Prosecutors. They have further prayed for issue of a mandamus to therespondents to conduct fresh examination and allow them toparticipate in such examination.

The petitioners are practicing as advocates at Vijayawada. Infurtherance of advertisement issued by the competent authority, theyapplied for recruitment as Additional Public Prosecutors. They wereissued hall ticket Nos. 9900220 and 9900292 for appearing in theexamination scheduled to be held on 04.03.2001 between 09.00a.m. and 12.00 hours and 2.00 p.m. to 05.00 p.m. at Nizam College,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, but they did not appear in theexamination.

In the affidavit filed by petitioner No.1, Akula Venkata BhaskaraRao, it has been averred that he and the second petitioner SultanAhmed did not come to Hyderabad to take the examinationbecause, through newspapers dated 30.3.2001, they learnt that theHigh Court has stayed the written examination. According to thedeponent, the examination was, in fact, held on 04.3.2001 becauseoperation of the stay order passed by the learned Single Judge wassuspended by the Division Bench in W.A.M.P.No.594 of 2001 in WritAppeal No. 306 of 2001, which was filed by the State Governmentand was taken up by the Division Bench as house motion on03.03.2001, but, on account of the misleading news appearing in thepapers about the stay order passed by the learned Single Judge,they were prevented from appearing in the examination. They havealso pleaded that they and large number of other candidates couldnot take the examination because of lack of information about theorder passed by the Division Bench on 03.03.2001 and, therefore,they are entitled to an opportunity to appear in the examination.

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, ithas been averred that applications were invited for recruitment of 17Additional Public Prosecutors vide notification dated 01.06.1999;that hall tickets were issued to all eligible candidates including thepetitioners, but they did not appear in the examination held on theappointed date and at the appointed time.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion,the prayer made by the petitioners for cancellation of the writtenexamination held on 04.03.2001 is liable to be rejected because –

(a) non-appearance at the written examination held on 4-3-2001 was voluntarily act on their part and the respondentsare in no way responsible for this;3-2001 was voluntarily act on their part and the respondentsare in no way responsible for this; (b)it is neither the pleaded case of the petitioners nor anyevidence has been produced before the Court to show thatthe news regarding stay granted by the learned Single Judgewas published in the newspaper dated 03.03.2001 at theinstance of the respondents;evidence has been produced before the Court to show thatthe news regarding stay granted by the learned Single Judgewas published in the newspaper dated 03.03.2001 at theinstance of the respondents;

(c) the mere fact that the newspapers had given credence tointerim order dated 02.03.2001 passed by the learned SingleJudge and, on that account, the petitioners may have beenmislead in believing that the examination scheduled on04.03.2001 will not be held cannot be made a ground forcancellation of the examination ignoring the fact that theinterim order passed by the learned Single Judge wassuspended by the Division Bench on 03.03.2001. If thepetitioners did not get information about the order of theDivision Bench, they cannot blame the respondents; andinterim order dated 02.03.2001 passed by the learned SingleJudge and, on that account, the petitioners may have beenmislead in believing that the examination scheduled on04.03.2001 will not be held cannot be made a ground forcancellation of the examination ignoring the fact that theinterim order passed by the learned Single Judge wassuspended by the Division Bench on 03.03.2001. If thepetitioners did not get information about the order of theDivision Bench, they cannot blame the respondents; and (d)the petitioners have not impleaded any of the candidateswho took examination held on 04.03.2001 and without issuingnotice and hearing such candidates, the Court cannot annulwho took examination held on 04.03.2001 and without issuingnotice and hearing such candidates, the Court cannot annul the examination.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 7407of 2001 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed.

G.S.SINGHVI, CJ

C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

The above recapitulation of facts and tabular statement of the orderspassed in different cases makes it clear that on account of the interim orders of status quo passed by this Court in the writ petitions filed by the appellants,respondent No.2 could not undertake the exercise for passing award inrespect of Ac.11-96 cts. The last order of status quo was passed on 19-5-1993 in WPMP No.8430 of 1993 in Writ Petition No.6653 of 1993. That petitionwas finally dismissed on 25-3-1996 and the award was passed on 12-3-1998. Therefore, by virtue of the explanation appearing below Section 11A, theperiod during which the proceedings in furtherance of declaration made underSection 6 remained stayed is liable to be excluded in computing the period oftwo years specified in Section 11A.

In Abhey Ram’s case (supra), a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question somewhat similar to the one raised in these appeals. The factual matrix of that case