Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Itha Saritha - Appellant
Versus
The Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited, rep. by its Managing Director & Another – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 19240 of 2014
Decided On : 21-04-2016
For the Petitioner:Peeta Raman, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K. Udayasri, Advocate.
Headnote:
Education Law – Examination – Notification – Selection – Challenging proceedings vide Lr rejecting to conduct trade test to petitioner separately or consider her candidature for provisional selection basing on marks secured by the petitioner in the preliminary evaluation weightage marks plus written test marks for the post of Junior Plant Attendant (JPA) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative and set aside the same – Petitioner is that in pursuance of notification issued by first respondent, she had applied for appointment as Junior Plant Attendant (JPA), as a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste (Women) and she acquired educational qualification i.e. SSC and ITI in Electrician Trade, for the post of JPA. Later, she was called to appear for written examination. In said written examination, she secured 49.64 marks and became eligible candidate to appear for the trade test in the ratio of 1:3. The first respondent also issued hall ticket to petitioner for attending trade test which was held, but she could not reach examination hall within the time due to accident as she slipped from the auto rickshaw and received head injury and then she rushed to the nearby hospital, underwent treatment, and later proceeded to the examination centre, but by the time she reached examination hall it was 10.45 a.m. and thus there was delay of 15 minutes to attend examination i.e. trade test, but she was not permitted to appear for trade test – Held, Petitioner qualified in Stages 1 and 2 but did not appear to the third stage i.e. trade test which is essential to decide the knowledge of an individual in academic excellence, performance in a particular trade which is the final stage of selection – Respondents have no opportunity to assess knowledge in the trade, to find out whether she is suitable to the post or not. Therefore, she is not eligible for appointment as JPA in the first respondent- Corporation, though she secured more than cut of marks or highest marks than the selected candidates in preliminary evaluation and second stage of selection i.e. written test – On over all consideration of the law declared by the Delhi High Court and necessity of interview and specific test for the selection process, trade test is essential to JPAs to attend different works in power generating plants. But the petitioner invented a different cause, did not appear for the third stage of selection process i.e. trade test, thereby disqualified for selection as JPA. On this ground alone the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition – Petition is dismissed.
1. The petitioner challenging the proceedings vide Lr.No.CGM (HR)/DGM(HR)/PO-C/WP.No.22178/2013, dated 19.06.2014 rejecting to conduct trade test to the petitioner separately or consider her candidature for provisional selection basing on the marks secured by the petitioner in the preliminary evaluation weightage marks plus written test marks for the post of Junior Plant Attendant (JPA) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative and set aside the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the notification dated 05.01.2011 and 17.10.2011 issued by the first respondent, she had applied for appointment as Junior Plant Attendant (JPA), as a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste (Women) and she acquired educational qualification i.e. SSC and ITI in Electrician Trade, for the post of JPA. Later, she was called to appear for written examination. In the said written examination, she secured 49.64 marks and became eligible candidate to appear for the trade test in the ratio of 1:3. The first respondent also issued hall ticket to the petitioner for attending trade test which was held on 13.04.2013, but she could not reach examination hall within the time due to accident as she slipped from the auto rickshaw and received head injury and then she rushed to the nearby hospital, underwent treatment, and later proceeded to the examination centre, but by the time she reached examination hall it was 10.45 a.m. and thus there was a delay of 15 minutes to attend examination i.e. trade test, but she was not permitted to appear for trade test. On the same day, she brought to the notice of the second respondent about the cause for her inability to appear for the examination and submitted a representation, but the second respondent arbitrarily refused to conduct trade test to her. Thus, she was prevented from attending trade test for justifiable reason, but the same is neither intentional nor wanton.
3. While the matter stood thus, the respondents declared the result of trade test, but her name was not found in the selection list of JPAs., on internet. Again on 05.07.2013 list of cut of marks, for various power generations projects/ stations to locals and non-locals for all reservation candidates, was kept on internet. Without reference to the trade test, the petitioner secured 49.64 marks, whereas the cut of marks fixed for non local candidates was 50.56. The cut of marks for SC (women) local candidate in KTPP and KPPS (O & M) are 40.84 and 46.24 respectively.
4. The persons who secured lesser marks than the petitioner were selected and appointed as JPAs after completion of formalities. Thus, denial of appointment to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary. She made a representation to the respondents, but no purpose was served, thereupon she filed a writ petition No.22178 of 2013, wherein a direction was issued by this Court dated 24.04.2014 to conduct trade test afresh, if not possible consider her candidature based on her performance at the first two stages. If the authorities are desirous of acceding to such a request, this Court cannot have any object. After receiving direction from this Court in the writ petition, the respondents passed a detailed order expressing their inability to conduct trade test afresh or provisional selection based on the marks secured by her in the preliminary evaluation weightage marks plus written test marks.
5. As per clause 9 of supplemental notification dated 17.10.2011, the preliminary evaluation, written test and trade test would be conducted allotting 25 marks to each test, but mere failure to appear for trade test is not a ground to deny appointment as JPA to the petitioner, since she secured highest marks than the cut of marks or highest marks than the candidates who was selected provisionally.
6. It is also contended that out of notified posts, about 150 posts were filled up, 30 posts
