IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with tribunal orders and merit-based selection are fundamental to uphold constitutional rights in public service appointments.

ORDER :

K Manmadha Rao, J.

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“….to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc.Rc.No.863/A2/DSC/2008, dated .5.2020 issued by the 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and colourable exercise of power and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of Language Pandit (Telugu) with effect from the date on which the unofficial respondent was appointed to the said post as per his ranking obtained in DSC 2008 in terms of the Judgment of the Honble Tribunal in O.A.No.11470 of 2009 dated 7.2.2011 with all consequential benefits ….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the DSC notification was released on 06.12.2008 for filling up vacancies of Language Grade-II and the petitioner appeared for written test and obtained Rank No.486 with 53 marks. The petitioner filed O.A.No.11158 of 2009 seeking a direction to the respondents to verify particulars and permit the petitioner for counseling on 16.10.2009 without insisting on Telugu Pandit Training Certificate. The Tribunal passed an interim order on 14.10.2009 directing the respondents to permit the petitioner for counseling. One Ms.Ramavath Sankaramma, who is unofficial respondent in this writ petition secured only 36 marks with Rank No.1187 and belong to S.T. Category was included in the selection list. According to notification, there is one post of Language Pandit (Telugu) Grade-II was notified as ST(General). The respondents has considered the case of Ms.Ramavath Sankaramma, who got far lesser marks when compared to the petitioner and appointed the said unofficial respondent as Language Pandit (Telugu) Grade-II without considering the merit. Questioning the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed O.A.No.11470 of 2009 before the Tribunal. The respondents filed counter in the said O.A. stating that, one vacancy of Telugu Pandit Grade-II is earmarked for ST General. However, at the time of counseling, the Commissioner, Anantapuram Municipality shown the vacancy as ST (W) and filled in by the said unofficial respondent and if the roster point is considered for ST (General), the appointment of unofficial respondent is to be cancelled. After considering the entire matter, the Tribunal allowed the said O.A.No.11470 of 2009, dated 07.03.2011, directing the respondents to issue appropriate orders appointing the petitioner as Language Pandit Grade-II in the vacancy that was notified for ST (G) in DSC-2008 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

3. The 3rd respondent called for remarks from the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the 1st respondent submitted report duly informing that at the time of filling up of vacancies of Telugu Pandit Grade-II, the Municipal Authorities have shown ST (G) vacancy as ST (W) for reasons not known and also due to over sight, it is not observed. Therefore, the 3rd respondent requested the 1st respondent to examine the issue and submit the reply duly verifying the connected records in the matter. The 3rd respondent issued Proc.Rc.No.2105/RC-1/2009, dated 27.10.2011 directing the 1st respondent to implement the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.11470 of 2009 and report compliance immediately. The 1st respondent did not implemented the order of the tribunal. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent dated 25.05.2015 requesting to consider the petitioner as Language Pandit Grade-II by duly implementing orders of the Tribunal. As nothing has been done, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Minister, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 06.08.2018 and requested to do justice. Basing on the letter addressed by the Chief Minsiter Office, the 3rd respondent issued Rc.No.2105/TRC-1/2009, dated 20.11.2018 requesting the 1st respond