Back
2010 Supreme(AP) 213
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
U. Lakshmi Narayana
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Department of Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad & Others
REV. WPMP NO. 4961 OF 2005 IN W.P. NO. 4175 OF 2004
Date of Judgment : 18-03-2010
For the Petitioner:V. Mallik, Advocate. For the Respondents: GP for Services-II.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908Order 47 Rule 1 - A.P. Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service Rules 1964 - Review petition - Absence of any statutory rules -Selection of the candidates - In the year 1995, the recruitment process for the post of Deputy Surveyor/Computer Draftsman Grade-II was taken up by the selection committee i.e., Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Member, Regional Deputy Director and Member under the Chairmanship of the Joint Collector, Kadapa, as per G.O. Ms. No.228/Rev./88, read with the circular instructions in Rc. No. D4/3565/92, and revised circular instructions in Rc. No. D4/3565/92, by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad, who was the head of the department – held, petitioner has now become age barred, and therefore, his case cannot be considered. It is settled law that the act of the Court shall not cause prejudice to any party - It is the duty of the Court to do justice and to grant relief to the parties. Merely on the ground of delay in disposal of cases, if relief is denied to the parties and cases are disposed of accordingly, in our considered view it amounts to doing injustice - It is the duty of the Court to undo the injustice done to a party - What is to be seen is whether the petitioner is responsible for the delay and if he is responsible for the delay then probably that circumstance can be taken into consideration while considering the other facts and circumstances. But when he is not responsible for the delay and the delay occurred because of the reason of pendency of the cases, then he cannot be held responsible - What is to be seen is what the position of the petitioner was when he approached the Court. Whether he was eligible for appointment and whether he was not age barred by that time - When he was not age barred and eligible for appointment on the date when he approached the Court, mere passing of time because of the pendency of the case before the Court, for which he is no way responsible, cannot be a ground to reject his otherwise justified claim. Merely because of the pendency of cases the relief cannot be denied to a party. If a party is not responsible for the delay in Courts or for the delay in administrative actions or for the delay in taking decisions by the executive authorities then how he be held responsible for the same and now can we deprive the accrued right to such party when he approached the Court or the authorities – Petition allowed
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar)
1. Aggrieved by the order of this Court dated 17.01.2005 made in W.P. Nos.26567 of 2003 and 4175 of 2004, the respondent in W.P. No.4175 of 2004 has filed the present review petition, under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, praying to review the said order mainly on the ground that this Court in the said order observed that in the absence of any statutory rules with regard to the selection of the candidates there is no reason to upheld the order of the Tribunal, though in spite of the fact that the rules made vide G.O. Ms. No.228 Revenue (SS) Department, dated 27.02.1992 i.e., the amended rules of A.P. Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service Rules 1964, prescribing the qualification for the post of Deputy Surveyor/Computer Draftsman Grade-II, were in force.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. In the year 1995, the recruitment process for the post of Deputy Surveyor/Computer Draftsman Grade-II was taken up by the selection committee i.e., Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Kadapa, Member, Regional Deputy Director, Kurnool, and Member under the Chairmanship of the Joint Collector, Kadapa, as per G.O. Ms. No.228/Rev./88, dated 27.02.1992 read with the circular instructions in Rc. No. D4/3565/92, dated 02.05.1992 and revised circular instructions in Rc. No. D4/3565/92, dated 12.05.1992 by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad, who was the head of the department. The selection was made based on National Council Vocational Training Draftsman Certificate and based on minimum general educational qualification i.e., SSC. The merit list was prepared on the basis of the total marks obtained by the candidates in SSC public examination out of maximum marks of 500, excluding the marks obtained in Hindi and total prescribed marks of 580 in National Council Vocational Training Draftsman Certificate (hereinafter referred to as NCVT) i.e., grand total marks of 1080 (500 + 580) in both the examinations as per Rc.No.D4/7908/93, dated 01.06.1994 of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad. About 30 vacancies were filled up in 1995 recruitment. Out of 30 vacancies, 27 vacancies were filled up in Deputy Surveyor category and 3 vacancies were filled up in C.D. Grade-II category and totally 15 vacancies were filled up by O.C. Candidates.
3. Challenging the above referred selections, the petitioner herein had filed O.A. No.3713 of 1996 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The petitioner in the said O.A contended that he had secured 319 marks in Draughtsman Civil and that the third respondent had appointed the persons who had not secured 319 marks. It is specifically contended that mixing up 10th class marks and preparing the merit list was contrary to the rules.
4. A counter was filed in the O.A contending that basing on the circular dated 01.06.1994, issued by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad, grand total of marks obtained by the respective candidates in the SSC public examination as well as NCVT examination was taken and that the merit list for the categories of SC, ST, BC and OC candidates were separately prepared. It was also contended that the unofficial respondent No.4 secured grand total of 687 marks in both NCVT and SSC examinations out of 1080 marks and so he was selected and appointed to the post of Deputy Surveyor under BC-D category as per his merit. It was also contended that the petitioner herein had secured 187th rank in the combined merit list. The last person who was selected in O.C. category had got 763 marks in both the examinations and in BC-B category merit list the 26th ranker had got 737 marks, whereas the petitioner had secured only 654 marks, and therefore, he was not selected in BC-B category in 1995 recruitment.
5. The Tribunal, having considered the A.P. Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service Rules, held that
