Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Siva Santhi Atmakuri D/o A. Koteswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri M.R.Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
2. The writ petitioner challenges the final merit list dated 23.08.2020 and the consequential appointment order issued in favour of the 4th respondent, ignoring the petitioner’s merit.
3. It is contended that pursuant to the notification dated 16.06.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent inviting applications for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors in various departments under its control, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Microbiology under the BC-A (Women) category as a local candidate of Guntur District.
4. Out of 16 notified posts of Assistant Professor, one post in Microbiology was reserved for the BC-A category. Both the petitioner and the 4th respondent belong to the BC-A category.
5. The selection process was for total of 100 marks. The marks were awarded on the basis of the following assessment/evaluation:
(i) 75 marks for performance in the qualifying PG degree/super-specialty examination
Court affirmed the entitlement to service weightage points for contractual employment, invalidating the outsourcing classification that affected selection.
Alterations to recruitment criteria must adhere to established legal precedents, not infringe upon fair selection principles.
Candidates must cumulatively meet eligibility criteria for recruitment, and delays in certificate verification, especially during exceptional circumstances, cannot justify denial of consideration for....
The court established that merit lists for public appointments must strictly adhere to the prescribed guidelines, and any deviation that introduces favoritism or lacks transparency is subject to judi....
The court upheld the university's policy of excluding training certificates lacking duration details, affirming no discrimination in the selection process.
The court upheld that seniority in public service must be determined based on merit and established rules, allowing for revisions when discrepancies are identified.
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
