Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 758 (AP)

Moganti Rama Santhi v. State of A. P.

2020-12-02

M.VENKATA RAMANA

body2020
ORDER : M. Venkata Ramana, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a practising Advocate from Machilipatnam Bar, is questioning the selection to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in 30% vacancies meant for open category (local and non-local) in zone-III and zone-IV, of the candidates, who secured less marks than her, in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner being a law graduate got enrolled from Bar Council of A.P. on 13.08.2015 and since then, she has been practising as an Advocate as a member of Machilipatnam Bar Association. 3. Pursuant to the notification issued by State Level Police Recruitment Board, A.P. in Rc. No. 40/R&T/Rect. 1/2019, dated 30.09.2019, for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in A.P. State Prosecution Department, the petitioner applied. Total number of posts notified were 50' covering zone-I to zone-IV. She appeared for written examination as well as oral interview. Being a local candidate of zone-II, she preferred the said zone as 1st preference and zones-IV, III and I in 2nd, 3rd and 4th preferences respectively. Merit list was published in respect of the above selection by the 3rd respondent on 18.02.2020. The petitioner has figured at S. No. 10 in this merit list, securing 230 marks in the written examination and 12.8125 marks in oral interview. Thus, in all, she secured, 242.8125 marks. 4. Having regard to less number of posts in zone-II for local candidates covering 70%, she did not expect selection in that quota. Since 30% of the vacancies in zones-III and IV should be filled up from local and non-local candidates, the petitioner preferred them. According to her, non-local candidates selected in these two zones secured less marks than her. According to the petitioner, in zone-III there are 12 vacancies, out of which 8 vacancies should be filled up by local candidates covering 70% quota and remaining 4 vacancies should be left open for local and non-local towards 30% quota. Thus, she contended that, in zone-III, 3 candidates, who got less marks than her were selected under 30% quota meant for open category i.e. local and non-local. 5. Similarly, it is the contention of the petitioner that in zone-IV, out of 17 vacancies notified, 12 vacancies should be filled up by local candidates under 70% quota and whereas the remaining 5 vacancies left should be filled up under 30% quota for local and non-local candidates. 5. Similarly, it is the contention of the petitioner that in zone-IV, out of 17 vacancies notified, 12 vacancies should be filled up by local candidates under 70% quota and whereas the remaining 5 vacancies left should be filled up under 30% quota for local and non-local candidates. According to the petitioner, even in zone-IV, 4 candidates who got less marks than her were selected in this 30% quota. 6. She also asserted that roster reservation is not applicable for the vacancies meant for open category (local and non-local) covering 30%, and that she belonged to open category. 7. In those circumstances, questioning this process of selection, inasmuch as by the date of filing the writ petition the selection was not finalised, in this writ petition she requested to issue an order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in selecting those who secured less marks than her in zones-III and IV, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as to declare her selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Public prosecutor in the above two zones from out of the vacancies available towards 30% quota. 8. The respondents, resisting this claim of the petitioner, filed a counter-affidavit through then Chairman of State level Police Recruitment Board, A.P. The main objection of the respondents 1 to 3 is that when antecedents of the petitioner were verified, it is revealed that she was involved and arrested in a criminal case vide Cr. No. 184 of 2018 for offences under Sections 324 IPC and 506 IPC of Chilakalapudi Police Station and that trial is pending in that criminal case. When a petition dated 02.01.2020 in the name of Bar Association, Machilipatnam against the petitioner was received alleging action against her for misconduct and misbehaviour, upon verification of antecedents, involvement of the petitioner in the above criminal case came to light. Information was also received, according to the respondents, that the petitioner assaulted another lady Advocate using stones, while threatening her with dire consequences. The notification for recruitment itself provided for verification of antecedents of provisionally selected candidates, according to these respondents, in its para-24 and therefore, on account of such material available against the petitioner, she is disqualified. Information was also received, according to the respondents, that the petitioner assaulted another lady Advocate using stones, while threatening her with dire consequences. The notification for recruitment itself provided for verification of antecedents of provisionally selected candidates, according to these respondents, in its para-24 and therefore, on account of such material available against the petitioner, she is disqualified. Reference is also made to Rule-12 (1)(a) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules in the same context while further contending that the petitioner has suppressed these facts in this writ petition, who has approached this Court with unclean hands. 9. In reply, while denying and disputing that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts, it is the contention of the petitioner that a false case is foisted against her basing on false allegations. It is also her contention that she gave a complaint on 24.09.2018 to the Bar Association, Machilipatnam and to the District Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam against one Smt. G. Ramadevi, a colleague Advocate, for harassing and threatening her. She further stated that, on her complaint on 26.09.2018, a criminal case was registered vide Cr. No. 193 of 2018 for an offence under Section 506 IPC on 20.10.2018 against Smt. G. Ramadevi. The petitioner further contended that Smt. G. Ramadevi gave a complaint against her on 26.09.2018 as a counter-blast to her earlier complaint. It is also the contention of the petitioner that pendency of criminal case, which she had already disclosed in her application, cannot be the reason to deny her selection, when she is otherwise eligible in all respects. She also questioned in categorising her as involved in a heinous crime by the respondents. 10. Heard Sri. Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Ashwartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 11. Now, the point for determination is-"Whether the respondents are justified in disqualifying the petitioner for selection to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor?" POINT: 12. The fact that the petitioner applied pursuant to the notification dated 30.09.2019 of 3rd respondent for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in the State of Andhra Pradesh and her provisional selection therefor upon securing such marks in the written examination as well as oral interview as stated by the petitioner, are not disputed. It is also now clear from the material that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O. Ms. No. 117, Home (Courts. It is also now clear from the material that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O. Ms. No. 117, Home (Courts. A), dated 16.10.2020, appointing 48 candidates of zone-I to zone-IV of the State of Andhra Pradesh as Assistant Public Prosecutors in A.P. State Prosecution Services, in terms of Section 25 of Code of Criminal Procedure r/w. A.P. State Prosecution Service Rules, 1992 in exercise of powers conferred under rule 10(a) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. A copy of this Gazette is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of hearing in this case. 13. In the counter-affidavit, the 3rd respondent did not dispute the fact that in zone-III, 3 candidates viz., Sri. Nemalipuri Mahendranath, Sri. K. Venkatanaga Pavan and Sri. Konkyana Sravan Kumar secured less marks than the petitioner. Similarly, in zone-IV, Ms. V. Padmaja, Sri. S. Lakshmi Sai Rama Krishna, Sri. Shaik Mohd. Sameer and Sri. M. Babu Rajendra Prasad secured less marks than the petitioner. All of them are shown in the provisional selection list towards 30% quota, which is available for open category for local and non-local candidates. The petitioner has produced copy of this provisional list as a part of material papers in this writ petition. 14. The notification for this post specifies in Rule-24 certain categories whereby the candidates stand to disqualification for appointments. This Rule reads as follows: "(i) Suppression of material facts (either in the application form or in the attestation form) (ii) If the candidate himself or through his relatives or friends or any other has canvassed or endeavoured to enlist extraneous support whether from official or non-official sources for his candidature. (iii) A person (a) who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living, or (b) who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with any other person. Provided that the State Government may, if satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such person, exempt any person from the operation of this rule. (iv) A person who has been dismissed form the services of a State or Central Government or from the service of any Central or State Government undertaking a local body or other authority. (v) A person who has been convicted for any offence in any court of law. (iv) A person who has been dismissed form the services of a State or Central Government or from the service of any Central or State Government undertaking a local body or other authority. (v) A person who has been convicted for any offence in any court of law. (vi) A person who is involved in an offence involving moral turpitude." 15. Admittedly, the petitioner is an accused in Cr. No. 184 of 2018 of Chilakalapudi Police Station registered for offences under Sections 324 IPC and 506 I.P.C. First Information Report therein was registered on 26.09.2018 on a complaint presented by one Smt. Sirigineedi Ramadevi, Wife of Sri. Gandepalli Srinivas, resident of Gandhi Nagar, Machilipatnam. The petitioner had shown this fact in her application for this post. She described therein that this prosecution is pending trial. 16. In the course of antecedent verification, which was undertaken by the respondent in view of Clause-24 of the notification referred to above, when a complaint in the name of Machilipatnam Bar Association dated 02.01.2020 was received, it was revealed that the said complaint dated 02.01.2020 was not forwarded by Machilipatnam Bar Association. However, the information collected by office of District Special Branch, Machilipatnam in the course of such antecedent verification revealed that, disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner by Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh in Roc. No. 300 of 2019 and Roc. No. 28 of 2020. On behalf of the respondents, a copy of communication received from Machilipatnam Bar Association dated 12.02.2020 in this context by the office of District Special Branch, Machilipatnam is produced, as a part of the material along with counter-affidavit. 17. The ground by which the petitioner was treated disqualified for this post is her involvement in the criminal case and suppression of these facts in this writ petition. 18. The petitioner is seriously disputing them on the ground that she has clearly mentioned in her application disclosing pendency of the above criminal case and that it did not amount to suppression of a material fact. 19. Rule-24 referred to above clearly states that there shall not be any suppression of material facts either in the application form or in the attestation form. It also requires a candidate selected should not be involved in an offence involving moral turpitude. 19. Rule-24 referred to above clearly states that there shall not be any suppression of material facts either in the application form or in the attestation form. It also requires a candidate selected should not be involved in an offence involving moral turpitude. Even if it is considered that the petitioner had disclosed pendency of criminal case against her, she did not choose to disclose the same coming out with clear averments explaining this situation in her affidavit filed in this writ petition. The reason for such omission remained unexplained. 20. This fact is stated by her only in her reply affidavit in an answer to the contents in the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent in this context. Therefore, as rightly contended for the respondents, the petitioner has resorted to serious suppression of a material fact of her involvement in a criminal case and it being the reason for her rejection or disqualification from selection for this post. 21. The petitioner did not refer to the proceedings pending in A.P. State Bar Council as is stated in the communication of Bar Association, Machilipatnam to the office of District Special Branch, Machilipatnam. These proceedings relate to the years 2019 and 2020. When the petitioner is seeking the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, such conduct is not expected from her. An Assistant Public Prosecutor by virtue of the post, apart from being an employee on the roles of the State, is an officer of the Court, representing the State in the proceedings. Therefore, the conduct expected of a candidate for this post should be blameless and above reproach, apart from meeting all the criteria, which a public servant is expected in terms of applicable Service Rules. 22. Therefore, any amount of explanation by the petitioner in this context is of no avail. 23. Whether the offences alleged against the petitioner attract moral turpitude or not, is not germane for the present purpose. Even otherwise, no arguments are addressed in this respect on behalf of the petitioner. Suffice to hold that there is serious suppression of facts by the petitioner in this writ petition. Disclosure of these facts consequent to filing counter-affidavit is not a consolation. Thereby, the petitioner is not entitled for relief in this writ petition. 24. The learned Government Pleader also relied on Rule-12 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules relating to qualification for Direct Recruitment. Disclosure of these facts consequent to filing counter-affidavit is not a consolation. Thereby, the petitioner is not entitled for relief in this writ petition. 24. The learned Government Pleader also relied on Rule-12 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules relating to qualification for Direct Recruitment. Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of these Rules require character and antecedents are, such as to qualify a candidate for the service in case of a direct recruitee. The selection authority as well as appointing authority should be satisfied on this score also. 25. On account of antecedents of such nature brought out against the petitioner, the respondents are justified in disqualifying her for appointment in terms of clause-24 of the notification for this post apart from Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. 26. Though the selection process is completed during pendency of this writ petition, in the light of the circumstances in this case, it cannot be a reason for the petitioner to rely on. The process of selection so settled, in the circumstances, cannot be unsettled at the instance of the petitioner in the backdrop of the material on record in this case. Therefore, this Writ Petition has to be dismissed. 27. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.