Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 821 (AP)

Union of India v. Podila Goutham Teja

2017-12-06

M.GANGA RAO, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

body2017
ORDER : V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. The Union of India and the Staff Selection Commission have come up with the above writ petition challenging an interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), directing the Staff Selection Commission to declare the results of the selection to various posts included in Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2016. 2. Heard Mr. K. Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Smt. A. Chaya Devi, learned counsel for the first respondent. 3. By a notification dated 13.02.2016, the Staff Selection Commission invited applications to various posts including the posts of Assistant Audit Officer and Inspector of Income Tax. The entire process of applications, conduct of examinations and declaration of results was to be online. 4. Unfortunately, the first respondent committed a mistake in filling up the form online, which resulted in his application for the post of Assistant Audit Officer not being considered. But, he had applied for various other posts including the posts of Inspector of Income tax. 5. The Staff Selection Commission did not make an issue about validity of his application 2 almost taken the first respondent to the goal post. 6. While ordering notice in the writ petition on 16.11.2017, we directed the learned Assistant Solicitor General to produce the results at least for the benefit of this Court, so that if the first respondent had not qualified in the examination, no further enquiry was necessary either before the Tribunal or before this Court. 7. Accordingly, the result of the selection in respect of the other posts (not the post of Assistant Audit Officer) was produced before us. We have perused the same and returned the sealed envelope to the Assistant Solicitor General. 8. It is seen from the material papers and the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that in respect of the other posts, the results of three candidates including that of the petitioner had been withheld. One out of those candidates had actually been debarred. The first respondent is not that candidate who was debarred. 9. The results of the process of selection, filed as part of the material papers by the Staff Selection Commission disclose that out of three candidates whose results are not declared, one was debarred and the other two, though selected, the results are not declared due to pendency of court cases. 9. The results of the process of selection, filed as part of the material papers by the Staff Selection Commission disclose that out of three candidates whose results are not declared, one was debarred and the other two, though selected, the results are not declared due to pendency of court cases. Therefore, the inference drawn by the first respondent is that the first respondent could be one among the two selected candidates. But this selection will be confined to a post in respect of which the application of the first respondent was validly made and admitted by the Staff Selection Commission. 10. Once the material papers disclose that the first respondent could be one of the two selected candidates, the first respondent does not want to pursue his claim for the post of Assistant Audit Officer, since the pursuit of such a claim is now acting as an impediment for the declaration of results in respect of other posts. Therefore, the learned counsel for the first respondent offered to withdraw the original application made before the Tribunal, so that the results of the selection for two posts could be declared. 11. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of, permitting the first respondent to withdraw the main original application pending before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1176 of 2016. O.A. No. 1176 of 2016 will stand dismissed as withdrawn. Since it now stands withdrawn, the Staff Selection Commission may officially declare the results of the first respondent with respect to the posts (other than the post of Assistant Audit Officer), so that the first respondent knows where he stands. 12. One apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the first respondent is that in case the first respondent is not a selected candidate for the other posts, he will lose the opportunity to pursue his claim for the post of Assistant Audit Officer. But that apprehension is misconceived for the reason that the prayer in the original application was only to direct the Staff Selection Commission to issue hall ticket. Therefore, if after the declaration of the results in respect of other posts, the first respondent finds that he is nowhere, it will not preclude the first respondent from approaching the Tribunal once again. 13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.