Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1407 (AP)

C. S. Mahesh Babu v. M. T. Kishna Babu

2024-10-04

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2024
ORDER : (R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) : The petitioners herein, after passing the ITI Certificate course, (Diesel Mechanic) had undergone apprenticeship in APSRTC between 2004-2006 in the case of the 1st petitioner, between 1999-2001 in the case of the 2nd 3rd petitioners. After completion of their apprenticeship, they are said to have worked in the Corporation itself as outsourced employees. On 01.11.2010, the Corporation issued a notification inviting applications to fill up 163 Shramik posts in Ananthapuram Region. Even before the notification, Corporation issued a circular No. PD-65/2010, dated 21.10.2010 clarifying the method of selection, allotment of marks and the requisite qualifications. This circular stipulated that the applicants who possess a minimum qualification of ITI with Diesel Mechanic Trade, for the post of Shramik would be given to candidates who had undergone apprenticeship in APSRTC. The allocation of marks as per these instructions were also set out in the following manner: 1. Marks obtained in ITI to be weighted down to : 50 marks 2. For undergone Apprenticeship : 30 marks 3. Weightage Marks : 20 marks Total 100 Marks 2. The petitioners who had applied for these posts had undergone the selection process. However, they were rejected on the ground that they had not obtained the necessary qualifying marks. It is stated that the necessary marks were not awarded to the petitioners as 30 marks which was to be awarded for undergoing apprenticeship were not awarded on the ground that such marks would be awarded only to candidates who possess a National Apprenticeship Certificate. 3. Some of the aggrieved applicants being aggrieved by this condition, which is said to have been absent in the notification and the circular, approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.6836 of 2011. When the matter came up before the Hon’ble High Court, the respondents agreed to award 30 marks on production of National Trade Certificate and the writ petition was disposed of on 30.03.2011 in terms of the undertaking. When the petitioners, herein, approached the Corporation for award of such marks to them also, the same was rejected as there was no direction in their favour. Due to this stand taken by the Corporation, the petitioners in C.C.No. 1141 of 2020 approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.36598 of 2012. When the petitioners, herein, approached the Corporation for award of such marks to them also, the same was rejected as there was no direction in their favour. Due to this stand taken by the Corporation, the petitioners in C.C.No. 1141 of 2020 approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.36598 of 2012. Similarly, the petitioners in C.C. No. 1142 of 2020 had approached this court by way of W.P. No. 33850 of 2012. Both these writ petitions came to be disposed of, by way of separate orders, by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 22.10.2019. The operative part of the orders reads as follows: “Sri K. Narsi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the Corporation has instructed its recruiting agencies to take into account the Provisional national Trade Certificate of the candidates, for adding 30 marks for selection purpose in the circular issued by the Corporation. He stated that in view of this instruction issued by the Corporation, if the petitioners approach the respective recruiting agencies through the Regional Manager concerned, appropriate marks would be added for the Provisional National Trade Certificate and their selections will be finalized for recruitment as Sramika. Therefore, it is appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the Regional Manager concerned of the APSRTC and produce a photo copy of the Provisional National Trade Certificate possessed by them and upon such production, the Regional Manger concerned shall take the same into account for adding appropriate marks for selection purpose, and pass appropriate orders about their selection or otherwise as Shramiks and communicate the same to the petitioners within two weeks from the date of production of Provisional National Trade Certificate”. 4. The petitioners are then said to have approached the 2nd respondent and submitted a representation along with the Provisional National Trade Certificate and Apprenticeship certificate and requested him to consider their case on par with similarly situated persons. As no action was being taken on these representations and since the orders of the Court were not being implemented, the petitioners are said to have approached this Court by way of the present contempt cases contending that non disposal of their applications amount the willful violation of the orders of this Court dated 22.10.2019 in W.P.No.36598 of 2012 and W.P. No. 33850 of 2012. 5. 5. The 2nd respondent herein filed counter affidavits, in both contempt cases, contending that the applications of the petitioners had been rejected, at the first instance, on the ground that the National Apprenticeship Certificate had not been produced and that the records in relation to this recruitment could not be traced out and steps were being taken to obtain these records. Thereafter additional counters were filed in both cases. The contention, in these additional counter affidavits, was that, the National Apprenticeship Certificate requires to be produced for award of 30 marks and the National Trade Certificate, which is different from the National Apprenticeship Certificate, cannot be taken into account. It is further contended that the direction of this Court was to consider the same for the purpose of additional award of marks and such marks cannot be awarded unless the National Apprenticeship Certificate is produced. The additional counter affidavits set out the difference between these two certificates and also state that the National Apprenticeship Certificate is issued only after extensive training while the National Trade Certificate is issued after specified period of training. The 2nd respondent also contended that when similar issues had been raised by other affected persons, the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.91816 of 2011, W.P.No.35237 of 2012, W.P.No.5913 of 2011 and also in W.A.No.120 of 2013 had effectively held that reopening of selections made in 2010 and 2011, should not be disturbed if such selections have been finalized and to consider the case of the petitioners therein for selection against any existing or future vacancies. It is further stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in an appeal against the order dated 06.02.2013 in W.A.No.120 of 2013 had also clarified that the same shall not be treated as precedent in any other case. The 2nd respondent basing himself on these directions submits that all the vacancies for the years 2010 and 2011 were filled up and as such the notification cannot be reopened as there are no vacancies. 6. The 2nd respondent also cited the orders of this Court in C.C.No.176 and 223 of 2012 as also C.C.No.1211 of 2020 wherein contempt cases filed on similar facts arising out of the same notification, had been closed by this Court. 7. 6. The 2nd respondent also cited the orders of this Court in C.C.No.176 and 223 of 2012 as also C.C.No.1211 of 2020 wherein contempt cases filed on similar facts arising out of the same notification, had been closed by this Court. 7. Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the aforesaid contentions are of no avail in as much as the order of this Court is unambiguous and requires the Corporation to accept even the Provisional National Trade Certificate for the purpose of awarding 30 marks and the respondents cannot contend that there is no violation of the directions of this Court. Consideration of the Court: 8. The direction of this Court, as extracted above, requires the Regional Manager/2nd respondent, to consider the provisional National Trade Certificate, produced by the petitioners, and to add appropriate marks in such a situation and to pass appropriate orders about their appointment or otherwise as Shramika. 9. This would mean that the orders of this Court have to be complied in two stages. In the first stage, the Regional Manager would have to consider the Provisional National Trade Certificate and award marks. Subsequently, after awarding such marks, orders for selection as Shramika would have to be passed. This is nothing but a direction to consider the petitioners for being appointed as Shramikas. 10. Though these contempt cases were initially filed being aggrieved by the non consideration of the petitioners and non award of marks, the 2nd respondent has produced orders passed on 30.11.2020 and 09.06.2023, rejecting their request for appointment. The 2nd respondent, in the second order, states that some of the petitioners had produced National Apprenticeship Certificate which they had obtained on 07.03.2012 and the said certificates cannot be looked into as they were obtained after the last date of submission, under the recruitment notification dated 01.11.2010. Apart from this, the 2nd respondent also stated that even if the said 30 marks were to be awarded on the basis of the National Trade Certificate, the petitioners would not be eligible to be appointed as the cut off marks required for appointment were higher than the marks they would obtain, even with the award of 30 marks for the National Trade Certificate. The details of the marks, the petitioners would have obtained, and the cut off marks are also set out in this order. 11. The details of the marks, the petitioners would have obtained, and the cut off marks are also set out in this order. 11. The first contention of the Respondent No.2, that marks cannot be awarded for National Trade Certificates, cannot be accepted. The direction of this court is clear and was given on the question of whether National Trade Certificates would also be awarded 30 marks, on par with National Apprenticeship Certificates. The respondents had no discretion in the matter and should have awarded 30 marks to all the petitioners who had produced National Trade Certificates. The award of marks was on the basis of the direction of this court and is not based on the requirements of the corporation or the requirements under the notification. This order had become final and has not been complied with. 12. The second contention of the 2nd respondent that the Petitioners would not get enough marks even if they are awarded 30 marks has to be rejected. The contention is that, if the petitioners are awarded 30 marks for their national trade certificates, all the other candidates who had obtained both national apprenticeship certificate and national trade certificate should also be awarded 30 marks extra and the petitioners would not have obtained sufficient marks for being appointed. This is specious reasoning at the best. The maximum marks that can be awarded for the certificates are 30 marks. There is no provision for award of 60 marks to candidates who possess both certificates. If such marks are to be awarded, the authorities would be awarding marks on a maximum of 120 marks rather than 100 marks, which is not in accord with the notification itself. 13. The reason for the refusal to appoint the petitioners appears to be the fact that all the posts advertised under the notification have been filled up and the corporation is unwilling to appoint these petitioners. 14. As far as the 1st respondent is concerned, the direction of this court was to the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent cannot be held to have violated the orders of this court. 15. For all the above reasons, it must be held that the 2nd respondent is guilty of having violated the orders of this court. On the question of punishment, this court had earlier been informed that the 2nd respondent has undergone procedures relating to the heart and is recovering. 15. For all the above reasons, it must be held that the 2nd respondent is guilty of having violated the orders of this court. On the question of punishment, this court had earlier been informed that the 2nd respondent has undergone procedures relating to the heart and is recovering. 16. In these circumstances, this Court sentences the 2nd respondent to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, within three weeks from the date of this order. In default, the 2nd respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. 17. Accordingly, both the Contempt Cases are allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.