S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS application is directed a Judgment dated 25-1-2000 passed by the A. P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad whereby and whereunder the Original application filed by the petitioner herein questioning the proceedings rc. No. 4521/98/h. 4 dated 30-10-1999 was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner belongs to scheduled Tribe. So are the other concerned candidates viz. , Smt. Savithri Devi and smt. Sugali Siva Bai. According to the petitioner she fulfils all the conditions laid down by the Government for limited recruitment to fill up back log vacancies of sc and ST as per G. O. Ms. No. 238 issued by the GAD dated 26-5-1999 and G. O. Ms. No. 71 Finance Department dated 26-5-1999. Her name was also sponsored by the employment Exchange. She and other candidates were interviewed whereafter she was appointed as an Attender with effect from 29-6-1999 by the 4th respondent. She reported for duty on the same date. It appears that the 4th respondent, pursuant to the directions of the 3rd respondent, under the aforementioned proceedings terminated her services with effect from 30-9-1999 on the ground that her appointment was not in accordance with the Government instructions and also that her performance as Attender was not satisfactory.

( 3 ) THE learned Tribunal upon considering the materials placed before it by the parties had arrived at the following findings of fact:". . . . According to G. O. Ms. No. 238, the marks secured by the candidates in the qualifying examination is the criteria for appointment against the backlog vacancies reserved for S. Cs. , and S. Ts. It is however admitted by the respondents in the counter that the applicant was appointed on consideration of age and not on the basis of the marks secured by her in vii Class and she did not produce her marks list of VII Class at the time of interview and she secured less marks than the candidates S. Savithri Devi and Sugali Siva Bai. On receipt of a complaint the Conservator of Forests, kurnool directed the authorities to appoint candidates in accordance with the Rules issued by the Government and not by any other method. Following the directions of conservator of Forests, the Divisional forest Officer, Kurnool issued the impugned orders terminating the services of the Applicant. Admittedly the applicant did not secure more marks in the qualifying examination than the candidates who appeared for interview. The applicant was appointed only on consideration of age which is not the criteria prescribed under G. O. Ms. No. 238. "it is not in dispute that the upper age limit prescribed for such appointment was 39 whereas the age of the petitioner at the time of her appointment was 38. The learned Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion was not correct in arriving at a finding of fact, solely on the basis of the statements made in the counter-affidavit, that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of her age alone.

( 4 ) IT is true that in the counter-affidavit it has been averred that the aforementioned savithri Devi and Sugali Siva Bai had secured more marks in VII Class examination. The aforementioned finding of fact together with the finding that the performance of the petitioner as Attender has not been found satisfactory were arrived at by the 4th respondent, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. We now really fail to understand as to how within a short period the question as to whether the services of the petitioner was satisfactory or not fell for consideration.

( 5 ) WE may note that in paragraph 6 of the affidavit, it has been contended-"i also submit that on verification and enquiries, I came to know the following facts. In fact Savithri Devi got less number of marks i. e. , 217 in the VII Class Examination, whereas I got 293 marks. Hence the contention that Savithri Devi got more number of marks is totally an unsustainable plea. I also submit that she is more than my sister. Furthe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document