Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 176 (AP)

Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Raaya Sridevi

2013-03-12

B.CHANDRA KUMAR, R.SUBHASH REDDY

body2013
Judgment : B. Chandra Kumar, J. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed questioning the order dated 02.08.2012 passed in O.A.No.415 of 2011 with C.A.No.76 of 2012 and VMA No.526 of 2012, by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The petitioners herein are the respondents and the respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their array before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The Government has notified 1066 posts of Secondary Grade Teacher (for short, ‘SGT’) in DSC – 2008. The applicant had applied for the post of SGT in Nizamabad district under SC(W) category. She secured 46.50 marks with 3406 rank and she was not selected for the post as she was not in the merit list of selection of SGTs. It appears that the Government had also notified 95 posts of School Assistants (Eng) in DSC – 2008, but however, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.112, School Education (Genl.II) Department dated 06.10.2009, only 85 posts were filled up. One Smt. Rajani Priya, who was selected for both SGT and School Assistant posts, was given appointment as SGT against 1066 notified posts. Subsequently, the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.61 dated 29.10.2010, directed the District Educational Officer, Nizamabad District to fill up the residual 10 posts of School Assistant (English). Then, said Rajani Priya, who was appointed as SGT, opted for the post of School Assistant (English) by resigning to the post of SGT. Accordingly, she was given appointment as School Assistant (English). Then the applicant submitted a representation to the District Collector, Nizamabad on 13.11.2011 requesting to appoint her as SGT in the vacancy caused due to resignation of Rajani Priya on her selection and appointment as School Assistant (English). Aggrieved by non-consideration of her request, she filed the above referred O.A. before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and referring to the relevant rules and provisions, passed the impugned order directing the respondents to post her as SGT keeping in view her merit, eligibility as per rules in the post that has arisen due to resignation of Rajani Priya within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents therein – Government filed this writ petition seeking to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant, referring to G.O.Ms.No.62, School Education (PE. SER.II) Department, dated 29.10.2010 and the annexure thereto, submitted that the Government had permitted the Commissioner and the Director of School Education to complete the recruitment process and to appoint eligible candidates to the post of SGT strictly in accordance with the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.161, Education (Ser.VI) Department, dated 06.12.2008 as amended in G.O.Ms.No.28, Education (Ser.VI) Department, dated 29.01.2009 subject to the outcome of the cases pending before various Courts. The relevant para applicable to the instant case is Para – 4(VII), which reads as under:- “(VII) If the candidate who applied for two posts and selected for both posts, the selection, will be considered for higher post only, and selection in lower post will, automatically, will be cancelled to accommodate the next meritorious candidates in the selection list in the respective category and community. However, an option along with declaration should be taken from the candidate for the posts to which he/she opted for appointed and with the approval of the District Selection Committee his/her name should be deleted from the merit list, then selection list should be prepared.” 6. The learned Government Pleader for Services submitted that since Rajani Priya joined and resigned the post, the post has to be filled in, in the next notification. 7. It is not in dispute that the applicant applied for the post of SGT which fell vacant by virtue of resignation of Rajani Priya. Admittedly, the applicant is the next meritorious candidate in the list of selected candidates in the category of SC(W) for appointment to the post of SGT reserved for SC(W). 8. As seen from the order dated 31.12.2010 in Proc. Rc.No.B3/5794/2010, the request of the applicant was not considered on the ground that the post of SGT which fell vacant consequent to the resignation of Rajani Priya cannot be treated as a dual selected vacancy, since Rajani Priya had joined in the post and resigned. But as seen from the arguments and submissions, said Rajani Priya was appointed as SGT on 03.11.2010 and subsequently she has resigned the said post on her selection to the post of School Assistant (English) on 10.11.2010, i.e., within a period of one week. But as seen from the arguments and submissions, said Rajani Priya was appointed as SGT on 03.11.2010 and subsequently she has resigned the said post on her selection to the post of School Assistant (English) on 10.11.2010, i.e., within a period of one week. It is not in dispute that she applied for two posts and selected for both the posts. The respondents have rightly considered her request for the higher post. Para-4 (VII) of the Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.62 referred above makes it clear that the selection of Rajani Priya automatically stands cancelled to accommodate the next meritorious candidate in the selection list for the post of SGT. Admittedly, the applicant is the next meritorious candidate. Admittedly, 95 posts of School Assistant (English) were originally notified, but only 85 posts were filled in. Merely because the SGT post is notified in DSC-2008 is not a ground to reject the claim of the applicant who is otherwise entitled as per the above referred G.O.Ms.No.62. In view of the same, it is clear that the Tribunal has considered the rule position and rightly concluded that the applicant is entitled to the post of SGT which had arisen due to resignation of Rajani Priya and accordingly directed the respondents to consider her request. 9. Accordingly, we hold that the writ petition is de void of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.