V. Sudheer, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep By Its Principal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO Writ Petition No.41226 of 2017 Between:
V. Sudheer, S/o V. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, aged About 33 years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o H.No.44-41, Thalampedu village, Chittoor Mandal & District. ... Petitioner Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi at Amaravathi, Tullur Mandal, Guntur Disrict and another .. Respondents For Petitioner : Mrs. B. Rachana Reddy For Respondents : Mr. M. Surender Rao on behalf of C. Srinivasa Baba, standing counsel
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO Writ Petition No.41226 of 2017 ORDER: (V. Ramasubramanian, J) Aggrieved by the dismissal of his Original Application by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, a person who applied for posts including in Group-II Service of the State of Andhra Pradesh, has come up with the above writ petition.
2. Heard Smt. B. Rachna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned standing counsel, appearing for C. Srinivasa Baba, learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission.
3. By a Notification bearing No.18/2016, dated 8-11-2016, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission invited applications for direct recruitment to Group-II Services. The Group-II Services of the State comprises of various posts, which are categorized into Executive and Non-Executive posts. While 8 posts are included under the category of Executive Posts, 34 posts are included under the category of Non-Executive posts. Each of these posts is assigned a Post Code number, even in the Notification. The Notification for recruitment contained a tabular column under Para 2 that stipulated the educational qualifications required for appointment to various posts.
4. The petitioner herein holds a B.Sc. degree in Mathematics and a Masters Degree in Computer Applications. Therefore, the petitioner wanted to apply for at least 4 different posts carrying Post Code Nos.10, 14, 15, and 16.
5. But the qualifications prescribed and the software so designed by the Public Service Commission did not permit the petitioner to apply for these post codes, since on the date of issue of the notification, the petitioner did not satisfy the qualifications indicated in the Notification.
6. It appears that the Public Service Commission later issued a clarification on 08-12-2016, which made the petitioner eligible to apply for the posts carrying post codes 14 to 16.
7. The grievance with which the petitioner went before the Tribunal was that immediately after the issue of the clarification dated 08-12-2016, the Public Service Commission did not make suitable modifications to the software, enabling numerable candidates to indicate preference against the post codes to which they became eligible by virtue of the clarification dated 08-12-2016. The petitioner, who got short-listed in the screening test and who also appeared in the main written examination, made a representation dated 31-07-2017, perhaps after getting out of examination fear, seeking permission to treat his application as a valid application made in respect of post code Nos.14 to 16. But, the claim was rejected forcing the petitioner to go before the Tribunal.
8. Before the Tribunal, the Service Commission took a stand that though no modification was made to the software, the candidates were given a sufficient opportunity, by way of web notes and press releases, enabling the candidates to select post code preferences through online mode from 26-04-2017 to 30-06-2017. At least about 400 candidates made use of the facilities so offered up to 30-06-2017 and the petitioner missed the bus.
9. Accepting the stand of the Service Commission, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition.
10. In the counter affidavit filed by the Public Service Commission before the Tribunal, the Public Service Commission very clearly pleaded that the screening test was held on 26-02-2017, and that about 4,83,321 candidates out of a total of 6,57,010 applicants appeared. In Para-6 of the counter, it was pleaded by the Public Service Commission that after release of the screening test results held in common on 14-04-2017, the Commission issued several web notes and press notes to facilitate the candidates to select post codes preferences through online mode from 26-04-2017 to 30-06-2017. In fact in Para-7 of the counter affidavit the Service Commission extracted the web note.
11. While responding to the averment contained in Para 6 of the counter affidavit by the Public Service Commission in the form of a reply, the petitioner did not take a very concrete stand, but took a
stand, which was a little wishy washy. He has stated in Para 2 of the reply affidavit as follows:
"Though the 2nd respondent commission gave time for post code preferences till 30-06-2017, the website not allowed MCA students for post code No.14, 15 and 16 (in my case post code No.10 also)"
12. In other words, the petitioner was not concrete in his stand about the lack of knowledge. In any case, the lack of knowledge on the part of the petitioner cannot advance his case, since the hosting of the notification in the website tantamount to a public notice and the same is made use of by at least 400 candidates as per the reply affidavit filed by the Public Service Commission.
13. It could not be the case of the petitioner that from 08-122016, the date on which the Service Commission issued a clarification, up to 31-07-2017, the earliest date on which the petitioner made a written representation, he was completely ignorant of the clarification. He cannot also plead ignorance, in a case where information has been hosted in the website.
14. As a matter of fact, the petitioner claimed in the reply to the counter that he was in a remote village, unable to have easy access to the internet and that since he was concentrating only on reading the subjects for the main examination on 15th and 16th July 2017, the lack of knowledge on his part up to 31-07-2017 cannot be put against him.
15. But we do not agree. The website information was available for a full period of two months. The petitioner cannot claim
that he was not able to access the internet for two continuous months. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the Original Application and we see no reason to interfere with the same. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J ________________ M. GANGA RAO, J Date: 06-12-2017 Ksn