Yarabala Raju v. G.Narasimha Raju
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD Writ Appeal No.1013 of 2016 Date:13.10.2016 Between:
Yarabala Raju, S/o Kantarao and 35 others.
..... Appellants And:
G.Narasimha Raju, S/o Venkata Rao and 18 others.
....Respondents Counsel for the appellants: Mr. V.V.Satish Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 15: Mr. B.V.Rama Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.16 to 19: GP for Animal Husbandry(AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) The appellants, who are third parties to Writ Petition No.27486 of 2016, filed this Writ Appeal with the leave of this Court feeling aggrieved by order, dated 31.8.2016, passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.27486 of 2016. The admitted facts giving rise to filing of this Writ Petition are that the State of Andhra Pradesh has initiated process for filling up 400 posts of Veterinary Assistants in East Godavari District, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.22, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (AH-II) Department, dated 17.8.2015, through direct recruitment. Respondent Nos.1 to 15, who failed to get selected, filed the afore-mentioned Writ Petition alleging that several irregularities have taken place in the valuation of the answer sheets, thereby, vitiating the whole selection process and that, no action has been taken by respondent No.18 despite the said fact having been brought to his notice.
In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.19, it was inter alia stated that on the representation being made by respondent Nos.1 to 15 to respondent No.18 on 27.7.2016, a four-member Committee for revaluation of the answer sheets was constituted, as per the guidelines issued by respondent No.17, and that the Committee has completed the process of revaluation of the answer sheets and submitted a detailed report
to the Joint Collector and Chairman of Selection Committee for further orders.
Having taken note of the said facts pleaded in the counteraffidavit, the learned single Judge directed respondent No.18 to call for a report from the Joint Collector and take necessary action in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of that order. The learned single Judge has also observed that if respondent No.18 finds any irregularity in the selection process, he can direct the Joint Collector to issue a fresh notification by cancelling the appointment of the selected candidates after due notices to them.
Mr. V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that even after revaluation of the answer sheets, all the appellants except one are found to have been qualified for appointment.
On a perusal of the order of the learned single Judge, we do not find any observation or direction which prejudicially affects the interests of the appellants. The authority concerned itself on receiving the representation from respondent Nos.1 to 15 constituted a Committee for revaluation of the answer sheets and this action has not been challenged by the appellants. Once the report is submitted by the Committee after revaluation, the competent authority has to take the matter to its logical end. This is exactly what the learned single Judge has directed to do.
Even as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, as noted above, except one appellant, others are not being affected by revaluation. This being the admitted position, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. It is needless to observe that if any of the appellants is affected by revaluation, and any order adverse to his interests is passed, he is entitled to avail appropriate legal remedies available to him in law.
Subject to the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, WAMP.No.2257 of 2016 filed by the appellants for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY ______________________ JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD 13th October 2016 DR