Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 489 (AP)

State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. S. Kumar Raju

2023-03-02

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, V.SRINIVAS

body2023
JUDGMENT D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J. - Writ Petition Nos.1142 of 2016; 19258, 19566 of 2013, 33304 of 2014 and 1158 of 2016 are filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and two others questioning the orders in O.A.No.4361 of 2013, dtd. 24/6/2013; O.A.No.7799 of 2012, dtd. 24/1/2013; O.A.No.7902 of 2012, dtd. 24/1/2013; O.A.No.1281 of 2013, dtd. 21/2/2013 and O.A.No.938 of 2013, dtd. 22/3/2013 respectively, passed by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). 2. Writ Petition No.1142 of 2016 is taken up as lead matter and arguments were advanced in this case. 3. This Court has heard learned Government Pleader for Services and Sri G. Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services submits that the Tribunal committed a mistake in allowing the O.As. According to the learned Government Pleader for Services, Notification, dtd. 31/10/2011, was published inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up of various posts as described therein. This Notification was issued under the A.P. Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules 1999 (for short "the Rules"). This was also amended later by introducing negative marking system etc. Learned Government Pleader for services submits that in order to qualify in the written examination the candidate has to get marks as follows: "The minimum marks to be secured by a candidate in order to qualify in the written examination is 40% for OCs; 35% for BCs; and 30% for SCs/STs and ExServicemen. Hence, every candidate has to get qualified in the written examination for his / her to be considered for selection to any of the posts. The case of any candidate will be considered for selection when he / she has to get 80 marks (out of 200 marks) of the candidate belongs to 'OC' category; 70 marks if the candidate belongs to 'BC' category or 60 marks if the candidate belongs to SC/ST/Ex. Servicemen category." 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services submits that these are the basic cutoff marks that are prescribed and that every candidate has to, therefore, cross this threshold to be considered as eligible for selection even if the candidate belongs to a special category like Home Guard, as in the present case. He submits that even though a detailed counter was filed the O.A. was allowed directing the respondents to treat the Home Guards as a special class and to prepare a separate merit list for them. He submits that even though a detailed counter was filed the O.A. was allowed directing the respondents to treat the Home Guards as a special class and to prepare a separate merit list for them. Learned Government Pleader for Services reiterates that qualifying marks are to be uniformly applied to all the candidates and the Home Guards cannot be treated as a special class. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal committed a serious error in allowing the application. Learned Government Pleader for Services argues that the candidates, who have participated in the examination like 1st respondent, cannot question the terms of the Notification and that prescribing of cutoff marks etc., are a matter of policy and that on both these grounds also the Writ Petition should be allowed. 6. In reply, Sri G. Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the Notification issued does not specify the minimum marks that have to be achieved by a special category candidate like the Home Guard. He points out there are various other special categories which are prescribed and no minimum marks have been stipulated. He also points out that the special category candidates like Home Guards, NCC etc., have been exempted from the Rule of special reservation. He relies upon Condition No.3 of the Notification which clearly states that the Rule of special reservation / representation provided in Rule 22 of the Rules will be applicable except in cases of special categories like MSP, NCC, HG etc. In addition, he submits that there is relaxation of minimum age upto 30 years in case of Home Guards. Therefore, he submits that separate quota and the age relaxation were given; recognized the Home Guards as a separate class. Since they are treated as a separate and distinct class a merit list should be prepared exclusively for these candidates, particularly as the Notification does not stipulate the minimum marks to become eligible. Relying upon a compendium of case law, filed along with a memo, learned counsel argues that this Court should dismiss the Writ Petitions as there are no merits in the same. COURT: 7. This Court notices that the petitioner, in this case is a Home Guard. There is no dispute about this fact. The Tribunal noticed that as per the Notification, minimum qualifying marks are prescribed for various categories and communities for selection to the posts. COURT: 7. This Court notices that the petitioner, in this case is a Home Guard. There is no dispute about this fact. The Tribunal noticed that as per the Notification, minimum qualifying marks are prescribed for various categories and communities for selection to the posts. For the Police Constables in the written examination a candidate belonging to O.C. has to secure 40%; B.C. candidate has to secure 35% and a candidate belonging to SCs/STs and ExServicemen has to secure 30%. In order to be eligible for selection O.C. candidate should get 80 marks out of 200 marks; BC candidate should get 70 marks out of 200 marks and SC/ST candidate should get 60 marks out of 200 marks. The Home Guards and other special reserved candidates can compete both for general vacancies and also into the vacancies reserved for the Home Guards. If they want to be selected under the General Category they have to definitely secure the marks specified in the Notification. However, a certain percentage of posts are reserved for special categories including Home Guards. But when they compete among themselves for the posts "reserved" under the Home Guard quota there are no cutoff marks or minimum marks prescribed. The Tribunal also noticed that neither in the Notification nor in the Rules referred to above, there is a reference to the minimum marks to be secured for the special category candidates like the Home Guard and held that the respondent therein should have specified the minimum marks under the Home Guards quota also. Therefore, considering all of the above, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Home Guards are treated as special class. A direction was then given to create a merit list based upon their performance in the examination without linking it into the specified marks prescribed to different communities and categories. This Court agrees with the process of reasoning and also the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. The Home Guards are a special "class". Minimum qualification marks are not prescribed for them in the Notification. Hence for their inter-se merit, they are entitled to the relief as granted by the Tribunal. The purpose of a special quota or reservation of posts will be lost if they are to get the general minimum in the facts of this case. The Writ petitioners are not questioning a term of Notification or a policy. Hence for their inter-se merit, they are entitled to the relief as granted by the Tribunal. The purpose of a special quota or reservation of posts will be lost if they are to get the general minimum in the facts of this case. The Writ petitioners are not questioning a term of Notification or a policy. Since they are a separate "class" and no minimum marks are prescribed for this class they are entitled to an order as prayed for. For their inter se merit they are entitled to a separate merit list. 8. In the Division Bench order passed in W.P.No.21604 of 2016, the Bench noticed that in the first round of litigation in O.A.No.8572 of 2011 and Batch it was clearly held when a separate quota is created for special categories it stands on its own legs and that it is vertical quota that is reserved for the special category. It is also clearly held that Rule 3(c) excludes the operation of Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Even in the present Notification of 31/10/2011 Rule 3 clearly states that the Rule of special reservation provided in Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 will be applicable except in cases of special categories. To the same effect is the final order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9719 of 2012 and Batch and also an order in Review W.P.M.P.No.26933 of 2014 and Batch. This Court also notices that the Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in P.Nagarjuna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,LAWS(APH)-2017-8-36= 2017 (5) ALT 683 has also dealt with a similar issue. Learned counsel for the respondent drew the attention of this Court to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment in answer to an argument advanced for non-availability. It is clearly held in this judgment that if X Number of posts are reserved for such categories, the candidates falling in the category are entitled to all those vacancies and their entitlement does not depend upon the act of the respondents in filling up the vacancies during the pendency of the litigation by filling up the vacancies. It is held that the respondents took a calculated risk. Therefore, a direction was given by this Division Bench to recast the selection list in spite of special category posts. 9. It is held that the respondents took a calculated risk. Therefore, a direction was given by this Division Bench to recast the selection list in spite of special category posts. 9. This Court also follows what is stated by the Division Bench. The respondents herein are entitled to succeed and the fruits of the litigation should reach them. Therefore, petitioners herein cannot deny them the rights or benefits that they are entitled to by virtue of their success. 10. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.4361 of 2013. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.1142 of 2016 is dismissed. 11. Consequently, for the same reasons, all the other Writ Petition Nos.19258, 19566 of 2013; 33304 of 2014 and 1158 of 2016 are also dismissed. Necessary steps for implementation of the impugned orders to be taken within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous Applications pending in these Writ Petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.