Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1120 (AP)

J. Peda Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-10-28

V.SUJATHA

body2022
ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue a Writ, Order or Directions(s) more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioners to attend the interview for the post of Kamati and for the post of cook in spite of working in the same post since, 2006 on contract / outsourcing basis pursuant to the provisional Merit List showing the names of the petitioners is highly illegal arbitrary unjust unconstitutional and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to attend the interview by duly considering the past 12 years of service and consider the petitioners candidature for appointment in respective posts and pass such other orders in the circumstances of the case”. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 were appointed as Kamati and Cook respectively on 12.06.2006 in Social Welfare Department by daily wages on contract. Later the 1st petitioner was appointed in the same post through outsourcing agency in Kandi Kuppa Social Welfare Boys Hostel. 3. While so, by virtue of proceedings dated 18-01-2008, issued by the Mandal Mahila Samakya 1st petitioner was appointed to the post of Kamati at Social Welfare Boys Hostel, Bhemanapalli Village, Uppalaguntam Mandal, East Godavari District. The 2nd petitioner was also appointed to the post of Cook at Social Welfare Boy Hostel, Pamarru. Thereafter, the Project Director, Vikasa Outsourcing Agency, Collectorate, Kakinada, vide proceedings in Visaka/N.A/OS.252/2011 dated 25.06.2011, appointed the 1st petitioner to the post of Kamati at Annavaram and 2nd petitioner to the post of Cook at Hasnabad. Both are working since, 2006 in their respective posts to the utmost satisfaction of the higher authorities. 4. The case of the petitioners is that in pursuance of the notification No.1 of 2018 in Rc.No.A1/Class IV/2017 in March, 2018, issued by the 2nd respondent for appointment of SC/ST backlog vacancies in various categories in East Godavari District, both the petitioners have applied for Kamathi and Cook respectively and thereafter the petitioners were selected and their names were also reflected at merit list at serial Nos.66 and 373 respectively. The respondents have also issued verification list and directed the petitioners to attend for verification of their original certificates on 09.04.2018 at 9.00 a.m., and to their utter surprise, their names were not shown in the final merit list. 5. The further case of the petitioners is that as per Condition No.1 of the notification as on the final date of receipt of application i.e., 31.03.2018, the candidates must have completed 18 years of age and must not have completed 47 years. But, in spite of the said restriction, all the candidates shown in the final selection list are more than 47 years, which is a clear violation of condition No.1 of the notification. 6. The petitioner pleaded that though they have continuously worked as Kamati and cook since, 2006, to the satisfaction of the hostel boys without any break of service, the respondents herein without considering their length of service for appointment on regular basis, have considered the new candidates who do not possess any experience. 7. While so, respondents No.5 to 14 and respondents No.15 to 20 got themselves impleaded in this Writ Petition as per the orders of this Court dated 06.05.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2018 and I.A.No.4 of 2018 respectively and respondent No.21 was added as per the orders this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2019 dated 19.11.2019, on the ground that they are necessary parties as they were selected to the posts of Kamati and Cook and having attended for certificate verification on 09.04.2018, were not given any appointment orders till today. 8. When this Writ Petition came for admission, this Court passed an Interim Order on 17.04.2018: “directing the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct interview to the petitioners by considering their past 12 years of service in pursuant to the provisional merit list for the posts of Kamati and Cook respectively”. 9. 8. When this Writ Petition came for admission, this Court passed an Interim Order on 17.04.2018: “directing the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct interview to the petitioners by considering their past 12 years of service in pursuant to the provisional merit list for the posts of Kamati and Cook respectively”. 9. The 2nd respondent filed its counter admitting the fact of issuance of notification and as well as the receipt of applications made by the petitioners for the posts of Kamati and Cook and further submitted that they are among a huge number of applicants who have applied for the posts, that further admitted the fact that their names also appeared in the Provisional Merit list but however because of the availability of limited number of posts in respect of Cooks both for SCs and STs, 15(SCs only(11) out of which 4 reserved for Women and the selections were made by fixing ratio of 1:3 and only 33 persons were intimated to attend for verification of Original Certificates out of whom only 11 can be selected against the vacancies available. Similarly, for the posts of Kamati, the total Number of posts meant for both SCs and STs is 17 of which only 12 posts meant for SCs of which 4 meant for Women. 10. The respondents have admitted that the petitioners were shown at Sl.No.66 and 373 respectively in the provisional selection list and the applicants were called interviews at a ratio of 1:3 and further submitted that the petitioners were earlier appointed through outsourcing agency and they are not the employees of the Government Departments and there is no law, rule or provision to absorb the outsourcing employees into Regular Government on permanent basis. 11. Heard Smt.N.Anula, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for respondents No.1 to 4, and of Sri.Gada Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents No.5 to 21. 12. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly admitted that no orders are necessary with regard to 1st petitioner, as he does not possess the requisite qualification/ experience. But, however requested this Court to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner by duly allotting fifteen(15) Roaster Points as he possessed 15 years of experience. 13. The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents No.5 to 21, has informed this court that the respondent Nos. But, however requested this Court to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner by duly allotting fifteen(15) Roaster Points as he possessed 15 years of experience. 13. The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents No.5 to 21, has informed this court that the respondent Nos. 7 to 9, 11 to 13 and 16 are being selected and all of them are working as on today and the remaining were not selected as they are not qualified for the said post. 14. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the 2nd petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 stating that as per the Interim Orders of this Court dated 07.04.2018, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings in Lr.Rc.No.A1/140/2018 dated 24.05.2019 directing the 2nd petitioner to attend for verification of certificates and accordingly the certificates of the 2nd petitioner was also verified on 28.05.2019, but however, no appointment orders were issued. 15. When the present Writ Petition was listed along with other similar cases on 07.05.2021, this court passed common order as follows: “With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners M/sN.Anula Katravath Shankar and Bokka Satyanarayana and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, the following Interim Order is passed. Pending disposal of the writ petitions, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners in all the three writ petitions, including the implead petitioners in W.P.No.12612 of 2018, in accordance with the relevant rules and take appropriate action as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months List the matter immediately after summer vacation, 2021.” 16. In pursuance of the Orders passed by this court on 07.05.2021, the respondents once again verified the applications of the candidates who have applied for the posts of Cook and Kamathi and issued the qualified candidates list by giving points to the candidates with regard to age and experience, wherein the 2nd petitioner experience was shown as five(05) years and thereby allotted five(05) Roaster points and was shown at Sl.No.139. In the said qualified candidates list, the respondent further informed that if any of the candidates has any objections, the candidates can file their objections, if any, enclosing the relevant documents to the Joint Director, Social Welfare Department, Kakinada on or before 12.08.2021. 17. In the said qualified candidates list, the respondent further informed that if any of the candidates has any objections, the candidates can file their objections, if any, enclosing the relevant documents to the Joint Director, Social Welfare Department, Kakinada on or before 12.08.2021. 17. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner filed his objections duly stating that he possessed 15 years of experience i.e., five(05) years as cook in Daglas Memorial Children Hostel and ten(10) years of service working as cook in Social Welfare Department hostels and requested to grant fifteen(15) Roaster points by duly considering the experience of 15 years. 18. In pursuance of the said objections, the third respondent published the merit list on 08.10.2021, wherein, the experience of the petitioner was rectified by showing as ten(10) years instead of fifteen(15) years. 19. Later, the 2nd petitioner also made representations before the respondents on 29.10.2021 and on 06.11.2021 requesting the respondents to count his services as 15 years 6 months(Private service 5 years and out-sourcing service 10 years 6 months), for which, the respondent-authorities have not responded. 20. Pending the same, the petitioner filed additional material papers i.e., check Memo dated 16-10-2021, wherein Column No.7 which deals with the experience, reads as follows: Sl. No Details : Post Period of Employment Place of working Service certificate 7 1. Experience if any If yes 2.Whether produced relevant experience certificate for Cook post or not? : 1. Cook 01.06.2002 to 01.12.2007 Daglas Memorial Children Hostel Enclosed 2. Cook 18.01.2008 to till today Social Welfare Boys Hostel, Hasanabad Enclosed 21. From the above check-Memo dated 16.10.2021, it is very clear that the petitioner possessed 15 years of experience, for which, he is entitled for 15 roaster points i.e., one(01) Roaster point for each year, which is admittedly not considered by the respondent-authorities, in spite of repeated representations of the 2nd petitioner. 22. In that view of the mater, having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents No.5 to 21, this court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the respondents to reconsider the experience of the 2nd petitioner and award the Roaster points to the 2nd petitioner basing on the check memo dated 16-10-2021. 23. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of, in so far as it relates to the 2nd petitioner. 23. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of, in so far as it relates to the 2nd petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. However, the Writ Petition is dismissed as against 1st petitioner and the unofficial respondents No.5 to 21. 25. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.