P.Uma Devi v. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.GANGA RAO WRI T PETI TI ON No.28532 OF 2018 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The petitioner is the unsuccessful applicant in O.A.No.4037 of 2016 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2016. Her grievance therein was that she was not permitted to write Paper-I examination of Group-I Mains conducted on 14.09.2016 at Rutviks Degree College, Vijayawada, due to lapses on the part of the authorities in providing indicators of the way to the examination centre. She sought a consequential direction to the authorities to conduct a special examination for her in respect of Paper-I and consider her candidature in the selection process based on her merit in all the papers.

By the order under challenge, the Tribunal took note of the fact that the petitioner was expected to report at the examination hall before 9.00 a.m. but she actually reported at 9.10. a.m. and was accordingly denied entry by the Chief Superintendent of the examination centre. According to the petitioner, she reached the hall at 9.10 a.m. as there were no proper signboards. This was found to be unacceptable by the Tribunal.

When the matter was taken up for hearing on admission, this Court asked Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, to report as to how many candidates were allotted to Rutviks Degree College at Vijayawada on 14.09.2016 and how many cases similar to the case on hand arose.

Sri Y.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel, would place before this Court a list of the

candidates allotted to various examination centres in relation to the examinations held between 14.09.2016 and 24.09.2016. Perusal thereof reflects that as many as 80 candidates appeared on 14.09.2016 for the examination held at Rutviks Degree College, Vijayawada. Learned counsel would inform this Court that no similar complaint as is being raised by the petitioner was made by anyone else.

In that view of the matter, it is clear that the petitioner stands alone in her claim that proper instructions were not available as to how she should reach the examination centre. When 80 candidates could do so, the fault in not reaching the centre within time squarely lies at the door of the petitioner herself. The order passed by the Tribunal holding to this effect does not warrant interference.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J _________________ M. GANGA RAO, J Dt: 29.08.2018 IBL