The District Educational Officer-Cum-Convenor, v. Shaik Chandbee,

[ 3313 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NO: 15199 OF 20'14 Between:

1. The District Educational Officer-cum-Convenor, District Selection Committee - 2008, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District - 508 001.

2. The District Collector-cum-Chairman, District Selection Committee - 2008, Nalgonda District - 508 001.

3. The Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad - 500 004.

4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 22. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 in O.A. No. 1622 ot 2011 AND Shaik Chandbee, D/o Janijiya, Occ Unemployee, Fi/o H. No.3-296121114, Srinagar Colony, Kodad, Nalgonda District.

...RESPONDENT/VIIRIT PETITONER

2. Smt. Jella Aruna, D/o. Somaiah, Occ Language Pandit Hindi, 0/0 District Educational Officer, Nalgonda District At Nalgonda - 508001 . ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.s lN O.A. No. 1622of 2011

3. The Hon'ble A.P, Administrative Tribunal, A.P Hyderabad, rep., by its Registrar.

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased lo issue a writ order or direction nrore particularly one in the Nature of Certiorari by calling the records relating to the order dt.23.04.2O12 in O.A.No.1622 of 2O11 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as contrary to law and issue an appropriate Writ

l.A. NO: 2OF 2o14lWPMP. NO: 18826 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order dt. 23.4.2O12 in O.A.No. 1622 ot 2O11 passed by the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pending disposal of the main Writ Petition l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WVMP. NO: 2261 OF 20141 Between:

1. Shaik Chandbee, D/o Janijiya, Occ Unemployee, Rl/o H. No.3-2$61211tA, Srinagar Colony, Kodad, Nalgonda District.

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 1 W.P.

1. The District Educational Officer-cum-Convenor, District Selection Committee - 2008, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District - 508 00 1 .

2. The District Collector-cum-Chairman, District Selection Committee - 2008, Nalgonda District - 508 001 .

3. The Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad - 500 004.

4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 22.

5. Smt. Jella Aruna, D/o. Somaiah, Occ Language Pandit Hindi, 0/0 District Educational Officer, Nalgonda Distrlct At Nalgonda - 508001.

6. The Hon'ble A.P, Administrative Tribunal, A.P Hyderabad, rep., by its Registra r.

( R5 is not necessary party in this petition) ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased vacate the interim order in W.P.M.P.No.'18826 of 2O14 in WP No. 15199 I 2O14 dt. 04.06.2014 and dismiss the Writ Petition with costs Counsel for the Petitioners: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (TG) Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: M/S.V. YASHODA LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENITNG FOR SRI. G V L'MURHTY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/S. K. RAJITHA The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.15199 of 2Ol4 ORDER: Per Hoi'ble Sri Justice AbiwvTrd Kumor stauu) This Writ Petition is frled aggrieved by the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity, "lribunal'), in O.A. No.1622 of 2O 1 1, dated 23.O4.2O12 2l Heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioners and Ms. V. Yashoda, Iearned counsel representing Sri GVL Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3) lt is contended by the petitioners that respondent No.1 has appeared for DSC-2008 for the post of Language Pandit (Hindi). She secured 68.5 marks and ranked as 68 in Nalgonda District. The name of respondent No.l was included in the provisionally selected list. However, while re-drawal of the merit list afresh, the name of respondent No.1 was omitted from the selection list on the ground that

!-.-a 'l'

Atis ..1 & PK, .l W P. No. I 5199 of 20 1,1 a candidate who secured 71 marks and a local candidate of Nalgonda District was considered for appointment to the said post. Respondent No.1 filed O.A. No.8144l2Ol0 before the Tribunal seeking to consider her claim for appointment to the post of Language Pandit (Hindi). Vide order, dated 22.lI.2OlO, said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal directing the authorities to consider the claim of respondent No.l in the counseling to be held on or after 23.ll.2olo. Vide order dated 30.12.2010, the District Educational Officer, Nalgonda, had rejected the claim of respondent No. 1 on the ground that admittedly 1n Nalgonda District, the last selected candidate under BC-B category has secured 71 marks, who is more meritorious than respondent No.l herein as she secured 68.5 only.

Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the respondent No.1 has again approached the Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.l622 of 2011. Vide impugned order dated 23.04.2012, the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. in favour of respondent No.l herein setting aside the rejection order dated 30.12.2010 and directing the petitioners herein to issue appointment orders to respondent No.

AKS, .J & PK, J W. P.No.l5I99 of 20I4 Language Pandit (Hindi) under BC-B Women category, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Learned counsel has further contended that the last BC-B women candidate recorded in Nalgonda District has secured 7 1 marks whereas the respondent No.l has secured 68.5 marks, which would mean that none of the candidates who have secured less than 71 marks were appointed in Nalgonda District. Therefore, it is prayed that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1622 of 201 1 dated 23.O4.2012 4l Learned counsel for respondent No.

l has contended that the post of Language Pandit is a District cadre post and B0% of the vacancies are liable to be filled up with the local candidates and 2Oo/o of the vacancies are liable to be filled up with the non-local merit candidates based on the Presidential Order and in the instant case, one candidate urz., Shaheda who has secured 71 marks and ranked '35' should have been appointed under 2OYo quota meant for merit but the petitioners have erroneously appointed Ms.

AKS,J&PK.J W.P.No.15199 of 20l4 Shaheda under 80% quota meant for 1ocal candidates. If at all Ms. Shaheda has been adjusted under 2O7o quota, respondent No.l would have been considered as a local candidate under 80% quota. This fact was not properly appreciated by the authorities and therefore the Tribunai was justified in allowing the O.A. Therefore, there are no merits in the present Writ Petition and prayed to dismiss the same.

5) Perused the material on record.

6) This Court having considered the rival submissions of both the counsel is of the considered view that as per the Presidential Order issued in G.O.(P). No.763 c.A. (SPF.A) Department dated 15. 11.1975, and the amendments made thereto from time to time, 8Oo/o of the vacancies have to be reserved for local candidates and 2OVo of the vacancies are liable to be hlled up under un-reserved quota. Admittedly, the more meritorious candidate i.e. Shaheda, who secured 35th rank was erroneously adjusted against 807o quota, whereas as per the marks secured by Shaheda she should have been adjusted under 207o quota, which is meant for

AKS,J&PK,J W.P.No.l5l99 of 2014 merit. In such a case, respondent No.1 could have been considered for appointment as Langr'rage Pandit (Hindi) under 8O7o quota reserved for local candidates. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the O.A. in favour of respondent No.1 herein. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned reasoned order passed by the Tribunal.

7l Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed'

Consequently, the petitioners are directed to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1622 of 2Oll dated 23.04.2012, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

SD/-V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER to,1 . ,*o ccs to The Additionar Advocate Generar , High court for the state of I Telanqa nalOUTl z One iC to'Sri. G. V. L. Nlurhty, Advocatq IgPUCI

5. One CC to M/s. K. Rajitha, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies TJ SB

HIGH COURT DATED:2510712023 a1r€ STAT€ o v o ol t q oo $$ stP I$8

ORDER

T oEsP!.Jc WP.No.15199 ot 2014 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

€ fY1