Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
Sushma Madamanchi, D/o M. Rambabu - Appellants
Versus
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh - Respondents
Writ Petition No.21127 of 2019 and Writ Petition No.160 of 2020
Decided On : 23-02-2021
Service Laws – Transfer – Respondent herein published a notification vide inviting applications through online for general recruitment to 38 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) A.P. Judicial service. Out of 38 posts, 31 were to be filled under direct recruitment category and 7 posts by transfer – Respondent herein published a notification vide No.05/2019-RC, dated 17.06.2019, inviting applications through online for general recruitment to 38 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) A.P. Judicial service. – Out of 38 posts, 31 were to be filled under direct recruitment category and 7 posts by transfer
Finding of court: It may be true that the answer scripts of 325 candidates were distributed amongst nine evaluators. But, the manner in which the selection is made does not anywhere show any disparity in allotting marks or evaluating the answer sheets. – Further, as fairly admitted by Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, no steps have been taken by the petitioners to obtain the marks obtained by each of them. – That being the position, it cannot be said that evaluation was done contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranav Verma’s case (supra). – Further, if the petitioners were in a position to show that some of the candidates, who were not selected, got very less marks, though they fared well in the examination and some got more marks than what they were actually entitled to, one may have raised a plea of faulty process of evaluation. – As seen from the averments and the material on record, out of 325 candidates, only 5 candidates were successful in the written examination and out of them three candidates were having less than 3 years of standing in the Bar. – Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the papers were not uniformly evaluated due to random distribution of the answer sheets to all the evaluators resulting in disparity while awarding marks cannot be accepted. – Court see no ground to accept the request of the petitioners
Result: Writ Petitions Dismissed
ORDER :
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
1. Since the issue involved in both the cases are one and the same, they are heard and disposed of by this common order at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsel.
2. The petitioners, who are seeking entry into judicial service under the categories of recruitment by transfer and direct recruitment, filed these two writ petitions challenging the procedure adopted for recruitment made to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service.
3. The 2nd respondent herein published a notification vide No.05/2019-RC, dated 17.06.2019, inviting applications through online for general recruitment to 38 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) A.P. Judicial service. Out of 38 posts, 31 were to be filled under direct recruitment category and 7 posts by transfer. The examination comprised of three stages -
(i) Preliminary Examination
(ii) Main Examination
(iii) Viva Voce
4. The petitioners being eligible for the said post, attended screening test held on 04.08.2019. Thereafter, on 23.09.2019, the 2nd respondent published a list of candidates eligible to appear in the written examinations to be held on 09.11.2019 and 10.11.2019. The petitioners, having qualified in the screening test, appeared in the written examination held on 09.11.2019 and 10.11.2019. It is submitted that out of 1270 candidates appeared for direct recruitment, about 325 candidates were selected for the written test and similarly out of 198 candidates under the category of recruitment by transfer, 70 candidates got selected.
5. The written test (Mains) consists of three papers, namely, Paper-1-Civil Laws, Paper-2-Criminal Laws, Paper-3-English Translation and Essay Writing. It is to be noted that the notification, dated 17.06.2019, also prescribes the syllabus covered under Civil and Criminal laws. In order to qualify for Viva Voce examination, the candidate has to secure qualifying mark of 55% in all papers and an aggregate of 60%, while in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it is 45% minimum with an aggregate of 50%.
6. The main thrust of the argument of Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranav Verma and ors. v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.565, 617 and 651 of 2019, dated 13.12.2019), the time stipulated for answering each paper and the procedure adopted in holding the main examination, is illegal, improper and incorrect.
7. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel, further submits that 31 questions are to be answered in Paper-I and to read and understand all 31 questions will take a minimum of 30 minutes and to answer 31 questions, which are descriptive in nature, only 150 minutes would be left, which is hardly sufficient to answer all the questions. In other words, his plea appears to be that 4.8 minutes of time to answer each question in Paper-I is insufficient to answer all the questions. In so far as Paper-II is concerned, he would submit that there are 10 questions and each question again contains sub-questions and the candidate has to answer all the questions which are 34 in number. Applying the same analogy, he would submit that average time for each question would be only 4.4 minutes.
8. In so far as Paper-III, he would submit that it has two parts. The first part relates to translation of 5 paragraphs, which takes considerable time to read and then to translate it. The second question in the same part also contains 3 lengthy paras which would also take lot of time to translate after reading and understanding the same. In the second part of the Paper-III there are two essays to be written compulsorily and each has to be written with not less than 1500 words. Having regard to the above, he would submit that it is practically impossible to attempt all the questions, leave alone writing the answ
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
