CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, KURNOOL Vs. PENUKONDA SREENU
LAWS(APH)-2019-6-3
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on June 19,2019

Conservator Of Forests, Kurnool Appellant
VERSUS
Penukonda Sreenu Respondents




JUDGEMENT

A.V. Sesha Sai, J. - (1.)This Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No.5963 of 2014.
(2.)The facts, in brief, leading to filing of the present case are as follows:
2 (i). State Forest Department issued a Notification dated 01.12.2007 inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates for recruitment to 5 posts of Technical Assistants (Draughtsman Grade-II). In response to the said Notification, respondents 1 to 3 herein/applicants submitted applications along with others. Thereafter, on 24.01.2008, respondents 1 to 3/applicants were appointed as Technical Assistants.

2 (ii). The Conservator of Forests-petitioner No.1, issued a show cause notice bearing Rc.No.3633/201 0/M1, dated 12.08.2010, by pointing out the following alleged irregularities, which, according to the Department, took place during the process of the said selection.

"1. The Post of Draughtsman Gr.II is governed by the "Andhra Pradesh Forest Subordinate Service Rules 2000" notified vide G.O.Ms. No. 88, EFS&T Department Dt.19-07-2000. Rule 14 of the rules prescribed the method of selection. For the post of Draughtsman

Gr.II, the selection is based on performance in written examination and interview.

The following two papers of two hours duration are prescribed for selection of candidates by direct recruitment;

a) One in Essay writing (in English or Telugu or Urdu);

b) Other in General Knowledge and mathematics (to be answered in English or Telugu or Urdu). A minimum of 35% marks in each subject but an aggregate of 40% in total is required.

Whereas the written examination was conducted only in one paper comprising of Mathematics and General Knowledge for 100 marks with a duration of (3) hours.

2. Candidates were called for interview even though they have not secured minimum qualifying marks. Out of 15 Candidates called for interview, only two secured qualifying marks namely Sri P.Sreenu and Sri P.A. Murthujavali.

3. It is also observed that, against. (5) vacancies, (15) candidates were called for interview. Records do not disclose how candidates were shortlisted. Calling the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 is also not contemplated any where.

4. Persons who secured more marks were not called for interview while calling the persons with lower marks, as shown hereunder:

SI.No. Name of the persons to be called Name of the persons called for for interview interview 1 Sri G.Kirankumar(SC) M.Revathi(SC-C) (Marks-20) (Marks 28.5) 2 Sri K.Vijayadu(SC) Sri Venkata Rama Raja Naik (Marks-22) (ST) (Marks-13)

SI.No. Name of the persons to be called Name of the persons called for for interview interview 1 Sri G.Kirankumar(SC) M.Revathi(SC-C) (Marks-20) (Marks 28.5) 2 Sri K.Vijayadu(SC) Sri Venkata Rama Raja Naik (Marks-22) (ST) (Marks-13)

5. Out of the five candidates selected as mentioned hereunder, except one, none of the candidates secured minimum percentage even after adding the marks secured in the interview.

Sl. Name of the Hall Selected Marks Marks Total No. candidate Ticket against obtained obtained Marks No. Roster in written in obtained Point test interview (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1 Penukonda 069 31 OC(G) 78.50 6.33 84.83 Sreenu (ST) 2 P.Venkata 075 30 OC(G) 29.00 7.00 36.00 Lakshmamma (OC) 3 D.Mamatha 043 34 OC(W) 25.00 7.00 32.00 (OC) 4 N. Venu Gopal 056 29 BC(A) 20.50 6.33 26.83 (BC-A) 5 K.Ramanjane- 088 33 ST(G) 15.00 7.33 22.33 yulu (ST)

Sl. Name of the Hall Selected Marks Marks Total No. candidate Ticket against obtained obtained Marks No. Roster in written in obtained Point test interview (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1 Penukonda 069 31 OC(G) 78.50 6.33 84.83 Sreenu (ST) 2 P.Venkata 075 30 OC(G) 29.00 7.00 36.00 Lakshmamma (OC) 3 D.Mamatha 043 34 OC(W) 25.00 7.00 32.00 (OC) 4 N. Venu Gopal 056 29 BC(A) 20.50 6.33 26.83 (BC-A) 5 K.Ramanjane- 088 33 ST(G) 15.00 7.33 22.33 yulu (ST)

These irregularities are grave and vitiate the entire selection."

2 (iii). As against the said show cause notice dated 12.08.2010, respondents 1 to 3 herein filed Original Application 5573 of 2010 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by way of an order dated 12.04.2013, allowed said Original Application, setting aside the impugned show-cause notice dated 12.08.2010. Questioning the said order, the Department carried the matter in Writ Petition No.24514 of 2014 before this Court. This Court, on 26.08.2014 in W.P.M.P. No.30717 of 2014, granted interim suspension of the order passed by the Tribunal, and the said Writ Petition is still pending.

2 (iv). It is also to be noted that in response to the show cause notice dated 12.08.2010, respondents 1 to 3 herein submitted their explanations on 26.08.2010. Thereafter, the Conservator of Forests-1st petitioner passed order vide Rc.No.5024/2014 M.1, dated 28.09.2014, terminating respondents 1 to 3 herein from service. Assailing the validity and legal sustainability of the said order of termination, respondents 1 to 3 herein filed Original Application No.5963 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on 18-12-2014, allowed the said Original Application, setting aside the order of termination dated 28.09.2014 passed by the Conservator of Forests-1st petitioner. In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the abovesaid order passed by the Tribunal.

(3.)This Court, on 31.03.2015 vide order in W.P.M.P.No.672 of 2015, suspended operation of the order of the Tribunal to the extent of respondents 2 and 3 herein, while observing that the order of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to respondent No.1 would be subject to further orders in the said W.P.M.P.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.