- (1.) This writ petition is filed for declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Warden Gr.II at Paderu of I.T.D.A. as unconstitutional and illegal and consequently for a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the said post forthwith as he is in the panel of selected candidates.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The post of Warden Gr.II had been notified by the Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency Paderu, Visakhapatnam in 1999 as part of Special Drive to fill up S.C. and S.T. backlog vacancies. The Government in order to fill up the backlog vacancies reserved for S.C. and S.T. candidates, have issued a G.O.Ms.No. 238, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 26-05-1999. By virtue of the said G.O., the Government have relaxed the written examinations and interviews (oral tests) for limited recruitment to be conducted by various recruiting agencies, exercising the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. While so on 17-6-1999, the petitioner was asked to appear for the interview for the post of Warden Gr. II with all the relevant certificates. The said interview was scheduled on 25-6-1999. Accordingly the petitioner has attended the interview. Pursuant to the said process of interviews, on 18-8-1999 a selection list was released. In the selection list the petitioner's name is shown at Sr.No. 3. But the individual who was at Sr.No. 2 in the said list and who was given appointment did not join the duty and thereby another instantaneous vacancy has arisen. Having come to know about the said vacancy, the petitioner had approached the authorities concerned to consider his case in the said vacancy, as he was next in the merit list. On his representation, the District Tribal Welfare Officer, Paderu has sought for a clarification from the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare and also from the respondent No. 3, the Government, as to whether the case of the petitioner can be considered for the vacancy, which had arisen due to nonjoining of the candidate at Sr.No. 2. Further there is no dispute that the candidate at Sr.No. 2 belongs to S.C. community and the petitioner also belongs to the same community and he is next in the merit list. The petitioner also made a representation to the respondent No. 1 on 5-5-2000 stating all the facts. Now the grievance of the petitioner is, till to-day his representations were not considered and no appointment was given to him and as such he has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) A counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent No. 1 denying all the allegations and sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.;