Back
2019 Supreme(AP) 171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.SESHA SAI, MATAM VENKATA RAMANA, JJ.
P. Brahma Sai and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. - Respondents
WP No. 45816 of 2018
Decided On : 18-07-2019
For the Appellant : A. Sreedhar
Headnote:
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Section 19 – Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 16 & 226 – A.P. Horticulture Service Rules – All petitioners are un-employees and some of them are graduates and some are post-graduates in Horticulture State of Andhra Pradesh-second respondent herein issued notification inviting applications for filling up 25 posts of Horticulture Officers in State – Order passed by Tribunal is highly erroneous, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution – In elaboration, it is further contended by Counsel that, having undertaken entire process of selection and completing same, by issuing provisional select list, there is absolutely no justification on part of respondent authorities in cancelling notification, issued on ground that State Government decided to entrust selection process to APPSC on basis of letter addressed by second respondent – Further submission of Counsel that said action, on part of respondents also in contravention of settled principle of law that ' rules of game should not be changed in middle – Held, Justification sought to be offered by second respondent, by any stretch of imagination, not sustained and comparison sought to pressed into service, in definite opinion of this Court, is not based on any valid reason and there is no rationale in said conclusions – Judgment on which the Government Pleader seeks to place reliance i.e., Rakhi Ray's case (supra), in considered opinion of this Court, not render any assistance to respondents in view of factual and circumstantial variations and having regard to principles laid down in judgments, referred to supra, cited by Counsel for petitioners – Petition is allowed. (Paras: 14 & 15)
Facts of the case:
All petitioners are un-employees and some of them are graduates and some are post-graduates in Horticulture State of Andhra Pradesh-second respondent herein issued notification inviting applications for filling up 25 posts of Horticulture Officers in State – Order passed by Tribunal is highly erroneous, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution – In elaboration, it is further contended by Counsel that, having undertaken entire process of selection and completing same, by issuing provisional select list, there is absolutely no justification on part of respondent authorities in cancelling notification, issued on ground that State Government decided to entrust selection process to APPSC on basis of letter addressed by second respondent – Further submission of Counsel that said action, on part of respondents also in contravention of settled principle of law that ' rules of game should not be changed in middle.
Findings of the court:
Justification sought to be offered by second respondent, by any stretch of imagination, not sustained and comparison sought to pressed into service, in definite opinion of this Court, is not based on any valid reason and there is no rationale in said conclusions – Judgment on which the Government Pleader seeks to place reliance i.e., Rakhi Ray's case (supra), in considered opinion of this Court, not render any assistance to respondents in view of factual and circumstantial variations and having regard to principles laid down in judgments, referred to supra, cited by Counsel for petitioners.
Result: Petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.
2. All the petitioners in this writ petition are un-employees and some of them are graduates and some are post-graduates in Horticulture. The Commissioner of Horticulture, State of Andhra Pradesh-second respondent herein issued a notification bearing No. Estt. I(1)AP/20/2016, dated 1.9.2016, inviting applications for filling up 25 posts of Horticulture Officers in the State. The posts of Horticulture Officers are governed by the A.P. Horticulture Service Rules, notified vide G.O. Ms. No. 776 Food & Agriculture (Agrl. II) Department, dated 15.9.1989. Petitioners herein offered their candidature by making applications in response to the said notification, dated 1.9.2016. Vide circular bearing No. Estt. I(1) 140/2013, dated 9.12.2016, second respondent herein, strictly adhering to the provisions of law and the instructions issued from time to time, prepared a provisional select list for 22 posts and invited objections by 31.12.2016. First respondent-State Government issued an order, vide G.O. Ms. No. 33 Agriculture & Co-operation (H & S) Department, dated 17.5.2017, agreeing with the request made by the second respondent-Commissioner to entrust 36 unfilled posts and also future vacancies to the APPSC. First respondent herein resorted to such action, pursuant to a letter, dated 20.1.2017, addressed by the Commissioner of Horticulture, State of Andhra Pradesh, Chuttugunta, Guntur-second respondent herein. Earlier, vide G.O. Ms. No. 239 Food and Agriculture (Agrl. V) Department, dated 7.4.1989, the State Government-first respondent herein had withdrawn the subject posts from the purview of the APPSC. The State Government-first respondent herein, vide web notification, dated 22.5.2017, cancelled the earlier notification, dated 1.9.2016, in response to which petitioners herein applied for the posts on the ground that the first respondent entrusted the selection process to the APPSC, vide G.O. Ms. No. 33, Agriculture & Co-operation (HORTI and SERI) Department, dated 17.5.2017. These circumstances compelled the applicants/petitioners herein to approach the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred, to as 'the Tribunal'), under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by filing OA No. 1507 of 2017. The Tribunal, by way of the final order, dated 30.11.2018, dismissed the said Original Application, which prompted the applicants/petitioners herein to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, by way of the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants-petitioners herein that the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the present writ petition, is highly erroneous, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned Counsel that, having undertaken the entire process of selection and completing the same, by issuing a provisional select list, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondent authorities in cancelling the notification, issued on 1.9.2016, on the ground that the State Government decided to entrust the selection process to the APPSC on the basis of the letter addressed by the second respondent herein on 20.1.2017. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel that the said action, on the part of the respondents, is also in contravention of the settled principle of law that 'the rules of game should not be changed in the middle'. In support of his contentions and submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments:
6. 2013 Law
