Butti Suhasini v. The Deputy Director,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.8607 OF 2011 DATED : 27.08.2016 Between :

Butti Subhasini D/o.Thirupalu, Age 34 yrs, R/o.Thurpugudladona Village, Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

..

Petitioner And The Deputy Director, Adult Education/Sakshar Bharath, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore & 4 others.

..

Respondents This court made the following :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.8607 of 2011 ORDER :

Notification dated 22.01.2011 was issued inviting applications for appointment to the post of Village Coordinator under Sakshara Bharath Scheme for East Gudladona village. Petitioner, 5th respondent and another person were the three candidates responded to the said notification. Out of two notified, one post has to be filled up by female candidate. Out of three candidates responded to the notification, two were female and one was male. The selection committee considered the eligibility of three candidates and having found that the petitioner and Sri Ramanaiah were found to be eligible, the Committee recommended for their appointment as Village Coordinators. In pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee, by order dated 27.01.2011 petitioner was appointed. While so, the Deputy Director, Adult Education issued proceedings dated 22.03.2011 holding the appointment of petitioner as not valid and appointed 5th respondent as Village Coordinator. Aggrieved thereby this writ petition is filed.

2.

Heard Mr.Mithileswara Reddy, representing Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1. Though notice is served, none appeared for the 5th respondent.

3.1 Mr. Mithileswara Reddy submits that petitioner was selected by duly constituted selection Committee and was appointed by the competent authority i.e., Panchayat Secretary. The order of appointment cannot be cancelled unilaterally by the Deputy Director and on that ground alone, the order is liable to be set aside. A reading of the order would show that on a representation submitted by the Surpanch, suo-moto orders are passed. There was no prior notice or opportunity afforded to the petitioner. Petitioner acquired right to hold the post as a consequence to his selection and appointment and without following the due process, such appointment cannot be cancelled even by the higher authority.

3.2.

He would further submit that the reason assigned for cancellation is wholly untenable. There is no requirement of approval by the Surpanch validating the selections made by the Selection Committee. Surpanch is only a Chairman of the Committee. In the Government orders in G.O.Rt.No.203 dated 13.04.2010, it did not envisage approval of Surpanch to validate the selection. Merely because the selection of the petitioner was not approved by the Surpanch, and the selection of the 5th respondent was approved, the selection of petitioner cannot be vitiated and on that ground the Deputy Director could not have set aside the selection and appointment of the petitioner. 4.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that having noticed that illegal selection was made on a reference made by the Surpanch who is the head of the Selection Committee, the competent authority, has taken a decision to rectify illegal selection

made and appointed the person who is entitled and therefore, supported the action of the Deputy Director in appointing the 5th respondent.

5.

The procedure for appointment of Village Coordinator, essential qualifications and the appointing authority are provided by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.203 dated 13.04.2010. As per the procedure envisaged in the said G.O., the sub-committee consisting of Surpanch, President of the Village Organizer (Grama Samakya), Panchayat Secretary, head master of the local school comprises of selection committee and they shall make the selection. The Surpanch shall be Chairman of the committee and Panchayat Secretary is the convenor and is also the appointing authority.

6.

It is not in dispute that the Surpanch participated in the selection. Except the Surpanch, other committee members have recommended the petitioner for appointment and held that the 5th respondent is not qualified for such appointment. As stated by learned Assistant Government Pleader, previous experience is one of the criteria for selection. Petitioner was having previous experience, whereas 5th respondent do not have such experience. On this ground petitioner was selected and 5th respondent was found to be not suitable. Except for the Surpanch all other members have signed the minutes of the Sub-Committee meeting. As seen from the minutes, the Supervisor of Sakshara Bharath, Member, Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency also participated in the selection. They have also approved the selection of the petitioner. G.O.Rt.No.203 do not envisage that unless the Chairman of the Sub-Committee approves the

recommendation, the selection would not become valid. Thus, merely because the Surpanch did not sign the minutes of the meeting, the selection of the petitioner cannot be said as illegal. Thus, the reason assigned by the Deputy Director, to cancel the selection of the petitioner and selecting 5th respondent is illegal. It is also seen from the minutes that the Committee found the 5th respondent as not suitable. Whereas the order of the Deputy Director, is silent about the eligibility of the 5th respondent. Even assuming that petitioner's selection was not valid, since the Surpanch has not approved the said selection, it would not automatically result in selection of the 5th respondent, when the 5th respondent was found to be not qualified for such appointment. It would, at the most, be a case of making a fresh selection. 7.

This Court passed interim order on 01.04.2011 suspending the proceedings dated 22.03.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is continuing as village coordinator in pursuant to the interim order. Thus at this stage on the ground that Surpanch did not sign the minutes of the Selection Committee appointment of the petitioner cannot be nullified. 8.

For the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 22.03.2011. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 27th August, 2016 Rds