Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 798
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. RAJANI, J.
Tanniru Phaneendra Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 12340, 13245 of 2019
Decided On : 17-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Pamarthi Kameswara Rao, Challa Gunaranjan.
For the Respondent: A.K. Kishore Reddy.
Point of Law: though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim an unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service, but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to, be in reasonable manner with objectivity, having due regard to facts of the cases
Headnote:
Constitution of India 1950 – Article 226 - Power of High Court to issue writ -Post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee - Seeking to direction to respondent to take action for selecting the petitioner for appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee St of Police as per his merit in the selection, pursuant to the notification, and send the petitioner for training to commence by declaring the action of the respondents in not taking action on the request of the petitioner, as illegal– Petition against the Order –
Finding of the Court : There is no dispute that P1 was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of one increment for the charge of unauthorized absence. The notification prescribes that a candidate applying under the category of Police Executive has to specify whether they fall under any of the categories mentioned in the note (C) of such categories - It can be said that P1 has not wantonly suppressed the information. The nondisclosure seems to be only due to the bona fide impression that the operation of punishment should be as on the date of making an application –
Result : Petition Allowed
ORDER :
W.P. No. 12340 of 2019:
1. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 5th respondent in considering; petitioner's candidature, for selection to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee: (SCT) Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) Men and Women) (SCT-SI-Civil) in pen Category (Police Executive) (OC-PE) instead of considering the same in open category (OC)/BC-A Category, at first instance before choosing to considering the same under OC-PE, basing on his performance and merit in selection process and the subsequent action of the 5th respondent in cancelling his selection unilaterally through Memorandum issued in Rc. No. 216/R&T/Rect.I/2018, dated 14.08.2019, as illegal, and also the action of the 5th respondent in mot considering his candidature for further selection SCT SI-Civil in Open Category, as illegal.
W.P. No. 13245 of 2019:
This writ petition is filed seeking to direct the 1st respondent to take action for selecting the petitioner for appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee St of Police (Civil) as per his merit in the selection, pursuant to the notification, dated 01.11.2018, and send the petitioner for training to commence from 12.09.2019 onwards by declaring the action of the respondents in not taking action on the request of the petitioner, dated 23.07.2019, as illegal.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the petitioner in W.P. No. 12340 of 2019 is referred to as P1 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 13245 of 2019 is referred to as P2.
3. P1 was initially appointed as Police Constable in Zone-III on 18.10.2013 and also was an aspirant for Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) (SI-Civil) appointment. Generally, if an in-service police personnel like P1 applies to higher posts, they would be provided preference as special category by earmarking 5% of vacancies. It is a kind of paying back to those police executives who have rendered service to department for some reasonable time. If anyone gets merit, his candidature is supposed to be considered as general candidate without treating him as special category. But the same, is not done in the instant case. A recruitment notification was issued on 01.11.2018 by the 5th respondent Board for recruiting Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) (Men and Women) (SCT SI-Civil) in Police Department, pursuant to which P1 responded in time through online. Though there was a mistake in online application, due to mistake done by the DTP Center person, immediately after the last date for receiving of online applications is over, it got corrected through online. Clause 19 of the notification speaks about percentage reserved for quotas in Special Categories. Note (C) of (iii)(b) of the said clause 19 speaks that Police Executive would not be considered for the said quota of Police Executive if any punishment is in operation against him. But it did not specify the fact whether that is as on the date of issuing of recruitment notification or not or whether the same is as on the last date of receiving of recruitment notification. There is no bar in the said notification or anywhere saying that in-service Police Executive should not be considered for appointment as SCT-SI-Civil in general category etc. The petitioner underwent the selection process at all levels and stood as one of the most meritorious candidate. In the said selection process, P1 secured 3Ist rank but in provisional selection list he was shown under OC Police Executive (OC-PE) quota. While things stood, the 5th respondent, at the instance of the 6th respondent issued the impugned Memorandum vide Rc. No. 216/R&T/Rect.I/2018, dated 14.08.2019, who cancelled his selection on the pretext that the dealing assistant issued the Service Certificate without verifying the Service Register whereas the candidate was awarded the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without effect on future increments and pension by treating the period of his absence from 01.10.2016 till
