Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Venkata Ramana, J.
Moganti Rama Santhi - Appellants
Vs.
The State of A.P. and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4980 of 2020
Decided On : 02-12-2020
For the Appellant :Ravi Kondaveeti, Advocate
For the Respondents: GP
Suppression of material facts in an application for a public post and involvement in a criminal case and disciplinary proceedings disqualify a candidate from selection.
Headnote:
SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS - SELECTION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - RULE-24 OF NOTIFICATION - A.P. STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES, RULE 12(1)(A)(II) - DISQUALIFICATION - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an advocate, challenged the selection of candidates with lower marks than her for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, alleging suppression of material facts and involvement in a criminal case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding her involvement in a criminal case and disciplinary proceedings pending against her before the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner suppressed material facts in her application for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor? 2. Whether the petitioner's involvement in a criminal case and disciplinary proceedings disqualifies her from the post?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule-24 of the notification for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor clearly states that there shall not be any suppression of material facts in the application form or attestation form. 2. The petitioner's involvement in a criminal case and disciplinary proceedings pending against her before the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh constitute suppression of material facts and disqualify her from the post.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the selection process was upheld.
ORDER :
M. Venkata Ramana, J.
1. The petitioner, who is a practising Advocate from Machilipatnam Bar, is questioning the selection to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in 30% vacancies meant for open category (local and non-local) in zone-III and zone-IV, of the candidates, who secured less marks than her, in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner being a law graduate got enrolled from Bar Council of A.P. on 13.08.2015 and since then, she has been practising as an Advocate as a member of Machilipatnam Bar Association.
3. Pursuant to the notification issued by State Level Police Recruitment Board, A.P. in Rc. No. 40/R&T/Rect. 1/2019, dated 30.09.2019, for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in A.P. State Prosecution Department, the petitioner applied. Total number of posts notified were 50' covering zone-I to zone-IV. She appeared for written examination as well as oral interview. Being a local candidate of zone-II, she preferred the said zone as 1st preference and zones-IV, III and I in 2nd, 3rd and 4th preferences respectively. Merit list was published in respect of the above selection by the 3rd respondent on 18.02.2020. The petitioner has figured at S. No. 10 in this merit list, securing 230 marks in the written examination and 12.8125 marks in oral interview. Thus, in all, she secured, 242.8125 marks.
4. Having regard to less number of posts in zone-II for local candidates covering 70%, she did not expect selection in that quota. Since 30% of the vacancies in zones-III and IV should be filled up from local and non-local candidates, the petitioner preferred them. According to her, non-local candidates selected in these two zones secured less marks than her. According to the petitioner, in zone-III there are 12 vacancies, out of which 8 vacancies should be filled up by local candidates covering 70% quota and remaining 4 vacancies should be left open for local and non-local towards 30% quota. Thus, she contended that, in zone-III, 3 candidates, who got less marks than her were selected under 30% quota meant for open category i.e. local and non-local.
5. Similarly, it is the contention of the petitioner that in zone-IV, out of 17 vacancies notified, 12 vacancies should be filled up by local candidates under 70% quota and whereas the remaining 5 vacancies left should be filled up under 30% quota for local and non-local candidates. According to the petitioner, even in zone-IV, 4 candidates who got less marks than her were selected in this 30% quota.
6. She also asserted that roster reservation is not applicable for the vacancies meant for open category (local and non-local) covering 30%, and that she belonged to open category.
7. In those circumstances, questioning this process of selection, inasmuch as by the date of filing the writ petition the selection was not finalised, in this writ petition she requested to issue an order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in selecting those who secured less marks than her in zones-III and IV, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as to declare her selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Public prosecutor in the above two zones from out of the vacancies available towards 30% quota.
8. The respondents, resisting this claim of the petitioner, filed a counter-affidavit through then Chairman of State level Police Recruitment Board, A.P. The main objection of the respondents 1 to 3 is that when antecedents of the petitioner were verified, it is revealed that she was involved and arrested in a criminal case vide Cr. No. 184 of 2018 for offences under Sections 324 IPC and 506 IPC of Chilakalapudi Police Station and that trial is pending in that criminal case. When a petition dated 02.01.2020 in the name of Bar Association, Machilipatnam against the petitioner was received alleging action against her for misconduct and misbehaviour, upon verification of antecedents, involvemen
