High Court for State of TelanganaWP(TR)/3245/2017dismissed no costs

Madhamshetti Ramulu v. The Government Of Ap., Higher Education Dept., And 5 Others

2018-08-24Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,P.Keshava Rao2 pages

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION (TR) No.3245 OF 2017 ORDER (ORAL): (Per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) We have heard the petitioner in person.

2. This Writ Petition (TR) is taken up on being transferred from the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The matter was originally registered before that Tribunal as O.A. No.355 of 2015.

3. The sum and substance of the petitioner's case is that the competitive performance offered by the petitioner has definitely put him at a high bench mark and was entitled to preferential appointment ahead those who have been included in the selected list for the post for which he competed.

4. As noticed by this Court in the order dated 21.02.2018, if the petitioner were to succeed, that would result in displacement of atleast one of the candidates who have been selected and / or appointed. No such person is impleaded in the writ proceedings.

5. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, as has been noticed in the aforesaid order dated 21.02.2018, the dispute is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any benefit through a judicial order in spite of the fact that his roll number was erroneously marked in the answer script by

HCJ & PKR,J WP (TR) No.3245 of 2017 wrong bubbling while entering the roll number. While the petitioner attempts to say that the roll number can be appropriately ascertained by comparative evaluation of different materials relating to the candidate, we are of the view that such an approach will be counter productive to the transparency and the managerial regime of the Public Service Commission which would work dealing with large number of candidates in the selection process.

6. Further, we also need to take note of the fact that the notification on the basis of which the petitioner prays for consideration was issued much earlier. At this distance of time, it may not be appropriate to grant any relief to the petitioner.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition (TR) fails.

8. Therefore, the Writ Petition (TR) is dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition (TR) stand closed.

______________________________________ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ _____________________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J August 24, 2018.