ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction to grant appropriate relief declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not appointing the petitioner as Office Subordinate in pursuance of the Notification No. A5/2340/2015, dated 25.03.2015 and appointing the party respondent (Respondent No.7) as Office Subordinate on the ground that the Study Certificate submitted by the petitioner was tampered as arbitrary, illegal, mala fide, discriminatory, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice and issue consequential directions, directing the respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner as Office Subordinate in pursuance of the Notification No. A5/2340/20, dated 25.03.2015 issued by the 1st respondent with all consequential benefits and further direct the respondents 4 and 5 to conduct enquiry with regard to the study certificate of the petitioner issued by the 6th respondent as well as the report submitted by the 3rd respondent and take appropriate action against the concerned authorities who issued the incorrect study certificate as well as wrong report, which is the basis to deny the petitioner’s appointment as Office Subordinate and appointing the party Respondent (Respondent No.7 herein) as Office Subordinate and pass such other orders.”

2. Heard Mr. P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, Services-III for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is visually handicapped (100% blind) person. The father of the petitioner was appointed as Lab Technician in Medical and Health Department and worked in various places in Anantapur District and retired from service in the same cadre. The petitioner and his brother studied in various places in Anantapuram District by virtue of his father employment. The petitioner and his brother studied at Government High School, Gudibandla in 6th respondent school from 6th Class to 10th Class between 1979-90 to 1983-84. Subsequently he completed graduation in B.A. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued Notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Office Subordinate and the petitioner applied the same and his name was placed at Sl.No.1 with No.71 showing the marks obtained by the petitioner as 96.25 out of 100 marks. Whereas the party respondent’s name was placed at Sl.No.5 with Application No.155, showing the marks obtained by him as 80 out of 100 marks. There are four posts notified in the notification. But the 1st respondent selected the 7th respondent as Office Subordinate, though the petitioner stood Rank No.1 among eight other candidates and appointed the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th candidates in the provisional selection list, consisting of four candidates, including the name of the 7th respondent. On enquiring the matter, it came to light that the study certificate submitted by the petitioner was tampered and that the 1st respondent has not selected the petitioner. Therefore the brother petitioner requested the school under Right to Information Act on 28.01.2016 to furnish the information with regard to study certificate. The School Authorities replied that no such information is available in the school pertaining to 1979 to 1986. In view of the mistake committed by the 6th respondent school, the petitioner lost his employment. Hence the writ petition came to be filed.

4. The respondents failed to comply with the Rule 12(1) of Writ Rules in filing the counter-affidavit within time. Therefore the right of filing counter-affidavit is forfeited.

5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the affidavit and mainly contended that the 6th respondent instead of mentioning Admission No. as 65313/21-11-1979 mentioned as 63313/1-11-1979. That was the mistake committed by the 6th respondent. Further the 6th respondent also given wrong dat