Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 806 (AP)

Cheboyina Karthik v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-05-12

NINALA JAYASURYA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

body2023
ORDER : Ninala Jayasurya, J. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.2 in not appointing the petitioner as Assistant in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by considering his candidature under BC-D Category as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 vide Notification No.2 of 2021 dated 09.09.2021 invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant and Examiner in the High Court Services by Direct Recruitment from the eligible candidates. He submits that the petitioner at that relevant point of time was effected with Covid-19 and therefore requested one of his friends to apply for the post of Assistant on behalf of the petitioner, as he was not in a position to apply for the same in person. The learned counsel submits that accordingly an application was submitted on behalf of the petitioner through online and in the test conducted by the High Court the petitioner was provisionally selected, but the petitioner was shown in “BC-B” Category List, whereas he belongs to “BC-D” Category. He submits that the petitioner on enquiry learnt from his friend that while applying for the post of Assistant, due to mistaken impression that the petitioner belongs to “BC-B” Category, the application was submitted under the said Category. In those circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner made a representation on 25.03.2022 to the 2nd respondent. He further submits that subsequently the petitioner came to know that one Mr.Kasireddy Sarath Chandra, who was appointed as Assistant under “BC-D” Category left the job, as he got selection in the State Bank of India and as a post fell vacant under “BC-D” Category, the petitioner again made another representation on 19.04.2022 to the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s candidature under the said Category. He submits that as the petitioner’s representations had not yielded any result, much less, any positive response, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief. 4. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner secured equal marks on par with said Kasireddy Sarath Chandra, who left the job and as a vacancy arose, the petitioner can be appointed in that vacancy. 4. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner secured equal marks on par with said Kasireddy Sarath Chandra, who left the job and as a vacancy arose, the petitioner can be appointed in that vacancy. He submits that as the petitioner seriously fell ill due to Covid-19, the petitioner’s application was submitted through online by the petitioner’s friend, who committed an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the Category of reservation as “BC-B” instead of “BC-D” and for the said mistake the petitioner cannot be penalized. He submits that the marks secured by the petitioner itself indicates that the petitioner is meritorious and therefore a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant under “BC-D” Category. 5. Per contra, Mr.N.Ashwani Kumar, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that there is no dispute about the petitioner’s provisional selection for the post of Assistant in “BC-B” Category. He submits that during the verification of Certificates, it was found that the petitioner produced a Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner belongs to “BC-D” Category. He submits that as per Note I & II to the Notification dated 09.09.2021, the particulars furnished by the applicant in the application form will be taken as final and that any information furnished by the candidate subsequently will not be entertained. He submits that the petitioner in view of the above Caution Note should have been diligent while submitting his application and if any mistake was committed at the time of submitting the application, no changes can be entertained later, more particularly, as it would affect the rights of the other candidates, who have diligently given correct information while updating their Community/Category status. He submits that if a candidate is allowed to change his Category of Reservation once the recruitment or selection process has commenced, it would lead to unending and chaotic process of recruitment. He submits that the petitioner’s representation was placed before the Committee of the Hon’ble Judges and in the light of Note I & II of the Notification dated 09.09.2021, the Committee had resolved to reject the request of the petitioner for appointment to the Post of Assistant under “BC-D” Category instead of “BC-B” Category. He submits that the petitioner’s representation was placed before the Committee of the Hon’ble Judges and in the light of Note I & II of the Notification dated 09.09.2021, the Committee had resolved to reject the request of the petitioner for appointment to the Post of Assistant under “BC-D” Category instead of “BC-B” Category. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision in Arti Verma vs. State of U.P., 2014 SCC Online All 15670 and submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 6. On due appreciation of the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for both sides, the point for adjudication by this Court is as to whether the relief as sought for by the petitioner can be granted? 7. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that in the application submitted through online, the Category of Reservation was mentioned as “BC-B”. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner though tried to impress upon this Court that due to a mistake inadvertently committed by the petitioner’s friend who submitted the application on behalf of the petitioner, the Category was mentioned as “BC-B” instead of “BC-D”, the same merits no acceptance in view of the contents of the Notification especially Note I & Note II. 8. In Arti Verma referred to supra, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court headed by Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, C.J (as he then was) was dealing with a matter which is more or less similar to the case on hand. The appellant in the said case raised a contention that as a result of an error committed by the Computer Operator, he was wrongly shown in the Category of Freedom Fighter. The Hon’ble Court while rejecting the appeal held that “it was as a result of an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted for the reason that the appellant would necessarily be responsible for any statement which he made online.” The Hon’ble Court further held that “if the Courts were to accept such a plea of the appellant, that would result in a situation where the appellant would get the benefit of a wrong category if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed, the appellant could always turn around and claim that this was as a result of human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly.” The Hon’ble Court further held that “interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is clearly not warranted in such matters as it creates grave uncertainty since the selection process cannot be finally completed.” 9. In Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and another vs. Neetu Harsh and another, (2021) 11 SCC 383 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed against the Judgment of High Court of Rajasthan. The respondent therein applied to the post of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate in the Civil Judge Cadre against two vacancies reserved for disabled candidates indicating her category as “General” and specifically mentioned “No” in the Column provided for indication of the claim under the Differently-abled Category. She was selected under the “General Category” and later on as she was placed at Serial No.137 requested to consider her candidature under the Category for “Differently-abled Persons” as “Visually Impaired” and to provide the appointment. As her representation was not considered she filed Writ Petition, which was allowed, with a direction to consider her candidature for appointment under the said Category. In the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the application under the Category of “Differently-abled Persons” should have been made and held that the directions issued by the High Court cannot be considered as justified when no such claim was made. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the High Court. 10. In the present case, the mistake stated to have been committed at the time of applying for the post, be it by the petitioner’s friend as sought to be explained is fatal, and incurable. Merely because one of the candidates selected for the Post of Assistant under “BC-D” Category left the job, it would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner or enable him to lay any claim over the vacant post. The petitioner has to bear the consequences of not applying to the post in question with correct information. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner are rejected. 11. The petitioner has to bear the consequences of not applying to the post in question with correct information. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner are rejected. 11. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court in the light of the above referred decisions, coupled with the conditions of Notification in Note I & II is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. Point is accordingly answered against the petitioner. 12. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.