THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI Writ Petition Nos.26072 & 26578 of 2013

COMMON ORDER :

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of a common order since the issue raised in these Writ Petitions is one and the same.

2. W.P.No.26072 of 2013 is filed by the petitioner and W.P.No.26578 of 2013 is filed by the State. Both these writ petitions are filed against the orders, dated 30.07.2013 in O.A.Nos.7275 of 2010, respectively, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), Hyderabad.

3. Heard Mr. P.V Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Ravichandran appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No.26072 of 2013 are hereunder discussed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner is fully eligible and qualified to be appointed for the Post of Forest Section Officer and he is a member belonging to BC-A community. The State Government had issued a notification, dated 18.10.2007 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Forest Section Officer. The petitioner has responded to the said notification and after undergoing regular selection process, he was selected and appointed as Forest Section Officer on 19.12.2009. Ever since, he has been discharging his duties for the best satisfaction of his superiors and everyone concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the 1^st respondent has challenged the selection and appointment of the petitioner by submitting a detailed representation to the official respondents and the official respondents have considered the case of the 1^st respondent and rejected the same. Aggrieved by the said rejection orders, the 1st respondent has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.78275 of 2010 and the Tribunal vide orders, dated 30.07.2013 was pleased to allow the O.A and set aside the appointment of the petitioner without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Tribunal has allowed the O.A preferred by the 1^st respondent on the ground that the 1^st respondent is more meritorious than the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the selection process, the written examination is followed by interview. The written examination was conducted for a maximum marks of 200 and interview to an extent of 15 marks, but when the written examination marks have computed for 85% and interview for 15%, then the petitioner gets in all, 56 marks in the selections, where-as, the 1^st respondent has secured 55 marks based upon the percentages, but the Tribunal has not appreciated this fact and mechanically allowed the O.A in favour of the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.7275 of 2010, dated 30.07.2013, the present writ petition is filed and this Court was pleased to suspend the operation of the Tribunal vide proceedings, dated 16.09.2013 and by virtue of the said interlocutory orders, the petitioner is working as a Forest Section Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the 1^st respondent was appointed as Forest Beat Officer during the year 2011 and it is not that the 1st respondent is jobless, he has worked as Forest Beat Officer, no doubt may be in a lower post, but the fact remains that the 1^st respondent is also working in the Forest Department as Forest Beat Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the very same selection procedure was adopted in the seven divisions of the State while recruiting Forest Section Officer. In all, 50 Section Officers were appointed and the Tribunal was trying to find fault with the selection procedure only in respect of the petitioner. Therefore, appropria