WP/836/2021 of Gadama Gopala Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2024

Conclusion

1. MUNAKALA VENKATA RAMANA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

2..

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents by rejecting the cases of the petitioners unilaterally on the ground that Marks not tallied/matched with the Original SSC is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents to follow the formula evolved by this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.13389, 13527 of 2019 dated 24-09-2019 and W.ANo.61, 151 dated 10-08-2020 and to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Energy Assistants (Junior Linemen Gr-II) by conducting selection test…….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the 2[nd] respondent issued recruitment notification for the posts of Energy Assistants (Junior Lineman Grade-II) through online stating that the online application will be available on the APEPDCL website from 02.08.2019 to 17.08.2019 and informed that all desirous and eligible candidates shall apply online after satisfying themselves that they are eligible as per terms and conditions of the recruitment notification. As the petitioners possess the qualifications for the post of Energy Assistants, applied for the said post and the applications were accepted and call letters were issued and called for the Pole Climbing/Meter reading/Cycling tests for recruitment to the posts of Energy Assistant/Junior Linemen Grade-II to the test centre at Vizianagaram to be held on 03.09.2019 and 04.09.2019 respectively. After verification of our certificates at said centre i.e., Vidyuth Bhavan, Vizianagaram, the candidature of the petitioners were rejected on the ground with written marks that “Marks not tallied/matched with the Original SSC”. Thereafter, the petitioners made a representation regarding the rejection due to conversion of grades into marks to the 2[nd] respondent and requested to consider the case of the petitioners for the tests as per recruitment notification. But no action has been taken by the respondents. In similar circumstances, some of the similarly situated candidates whose candidatures were rejected approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.13389, 13527 of 2019 and this Court disposed of the writ petitions vide order dated 24.09.2019 holding that “the results of the recruitment shall be announced only after the petitioner is permitted to participate in the selection process, based on the revised calculation as per the above mentioned formula if he falls under the consideration criteria, he shall be considered for selection.”Aggrieved by the same, the 2[nd] respondent therein filed W.A.Nos.61, 151 of 2020 and a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Appeals with costs. But the respondents are not taking any action to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the posts of Energy Assistants (Junior Linemen Grade-II). Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The 3[rd] respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the writ petition and mainly contended that, as per the notification, “the APEPDCL is not responsible for any discrepancy in submitting the applications. The applications are therefore advised to strictly follow the instructions issued in notification in their own interest. Applicant must compulsorily fill-up all relevant fields of application and submit application through website only. Incomplete/incorrect application form will be summarily rejected. APEPDCL under any circumstances will not entertain the information if any furnished by the candidate subsequently. Applicants should be careful in filling-up of the application form at the time of submission. If any wrong/false information is detected during the scrutiny, the candidature will be rejected even though he comes through the final stage of recruitment process or even at a later stage”. It is further contended that, as per the selection procedure, the merit shall be considered on the basis of the data entered in online application by the candidate and the same shall be cross checked from the original certificates. The candidature will be considered for further tests as mentioned in notification after verification of the original certificates and tallying with the data entered in online application at the test centres at respective circles. In case of any details found contrary to the detail submitted in online application, the candidature will be rejected. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard Mr.M.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Kothapalli Aishwarya, learned Junior Standing Counsel for APEPDCL, representing Mr.V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel, for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition and prays to allow the writ petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, in compliance of the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.13389, 13527 of 2019, the candidature of petitioners for participating in the selection process was

considered basing on the revised calculation and called for tests on 28.09.2019 along with original certificates and conducted tests. Further, the petitioners who have come up under consideration for selection were issued appointment orders during September and joined accordingly. She further submits that, after completion of recruitment, certain petitioners vide W.P.No.15643 and batch approached this Court and obtained orders on 15.10.2019 as “the results of the recruitment pertaining to the said 45 posts shall be announced only after the petitioners are permitted to participate in the selection process, based on the revised calculation as per the mentioned formula and if they fall under the consideration criteria, they shall be considered for selection against the 45 posts”. Aggrieved by the same, the APEPDCL preferred W.A.No.61 of 2020 and batch and the batch of writ appeals were disposed on 10.08.2020 and 11.08.2020 with a direction “to carry out of the direction as issued by the learned Single Judge within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order”. In compliance of the same, the respondents conducted the required mandatory tests on 25.11.2020. She further submits that, after a lapse of 16 months, the petitioners herein approached this Court and filed this writ petition with unclean hands and the petitioners have no legal right to ventilate their grievance under extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of constitution of India. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Perused the record.

8. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the respondent authorites have not followed the proper procedure while conducting the selection and certain procedural discrepancies are taken place. Hence, the petitioner and others have filed W.P.Nos.13389 and 13527 of 2019 before this Court and the same were disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2019. In compliance of the same, the respondents have considered the petitioners therein basing on the revised calculation and called for tests on 28.09.2019 along with original certificates and conducted tests. The petitioners who have came up for consideration for selection were issued appointment orders during September, 2019 and joined accordingly. But the petitioner herein approached this Court after a lapse of 16 months with the same cause of action. Further, the respondents have complied with the directions of this Court passed in W.P.No.15643 and batch and also issued in W.A.No.61 of 2020 and batch, dated 10.08.2020 and considered the cases of the petitioners and appointed them in view of directions of this Court.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, the entire selection process was completed in the month of September, 2019 itself. The petitioner approached this Court in the month of January, 2021 i.e., after a lapse of 16 months, which is not feasible to consider the request of the petitioner at this juncture. However, if there are any vacancies, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner as a one-time measure, in accordance with law.

10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________

Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

Date : 31-12-2024 BMS