S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE question that arises for consideration in this appeal is under what circumstances Letters Patent would lie either against an order refusing to review the original order or the original order of the learned Single Judge.

( 2 ) THIS Writ Appeal arises out of the orders dated 26-4-2001 and 03-04-2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in Rev. W. P. M. P. No. 11343 of 2001 and W. P. No. 191 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge allowed the writ application holding that the procedure adopted by the management of the 1st respondent-educational institution in selecting the candidates for the post of physical Education Teachers is irregular and illegal and contrary to the employment notification dated 25-11-1997.

( 3 ) THE fact of the matter is not in dispute. An employment notification was issued whereby applications were invited from the candidates registered in the Employment exchange in the State of Andhra Pradesh for selection and appointment in the posts inter alia of Physical Education Teachers. The provisional qualification required therefor was a diploma in Physical education. Clause 3 of the said notification states that the method of selection was a written test for 85 marks and an interview for 15 marks. The respondents, however, conducted the written examination for 40 marks. Questioning the said change in the method of selection, the Writ Petition has been filed.

( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge, in the order dated 03-04-2000 passed in the writ petition, observed thus:although respondents 2 to 5 have filed counter-affidavit, quite understandably, they have not produced the question paper to deny the allegations of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is the author of question paper and for the reasons best known to it, it has not put in appearance in the case, nor produced the question paper before the Court for its perusal. At the time of hearing, the Court pointedly asked government Pleader for School education and also learned Counsel for 5th respondent as to whether their clients have the question paper and both of them told the Court that the question paper is not available with them. Further, in both the counters filed by the official respondents and 5th respondent, the specific allegation of the petitioner extracted above is not denied by them. I do not find anything on record to doubt the integrity of the sworn statement made by the petitioner in para (6) of his affidavit. From what is stated by the official respondents and 5th respondent in their counter-affidavits, it seems to my mind that the allegations made by the petitioner in para (6) of the affidavit is correct. I say this because meeting the allegations of the petitioner in para (6) of the affidavit, the official respondent in para (5) of the counter-affidavit have stated that written test includes demonstration of various aspects of physical education, training, and such demonstration has to be treated as a part of the written examination. In other words, it is impliedly admitted by the respondents that the written test as such did not carry 85 marks as notified in the Employment notification. If according to the curriculum and system of examination, separate marks has to be allotted for demonstration of various aspects of physical education training, there was no difficulty for the management to notify so in the employment Notification, but the employment Notification does not provide any marks separately for the demonstration of physical education training. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, I hold that the procedure adopted by the management of 1st respondent educational institution in selecting the candidate for the post of physical education teacher is irregular and illegal and contrary to the employment Notification dated 25-11-1997. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed and the appointment of 5th respondent as physical Education Teacher is quashed. Now, the management is at liberty to no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document