HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRI T PETI TI ON No.41239 of 2018

ORDER:

The petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) (Women) category, was selected for the post of School Assistant (Telugu) under DSC-2012 and secured Sl.No.17 in the selection list, but her appointment order was withheld on the ground of ambiguity regarding her local candidature between Nalgonda and Ranga Reddy Districts. Despite being meritorious, the petitioner was denied timely appointment while candidates above and below her in the selection list were appointed during 2012–2013. She approached the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by filing O.A.No.1541/2013, which was allowed on 30.04.2013 with a direction to the respondents to appoint her to the said post under ST (Women) category as a local candidate of Ranga Reddy District. The said order was challenged by the respondents in W.P.No.4330/2014 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 09.03.2014 with a further direction to comply with the Tribunal’s order within four weeks. Consequently, the 3^rd respondent issued posting orders vide Procs. Rc.No.11500/A4/2012 dated 30.05.2014, and the petitioner submitted her joining report on 31.05.2014. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.09.2014 stating that her pay was fixed from the date of joining, unlike her juniors whose pay was fixed from their earlier dates of joining, thereby depriving her of seniority and consequential service benefits. The 3^rd respondent, taking note of similar issues faced by other candidates, addressed a letter Lr.Rc.No.11500/A4/2012 dated 07.04.2015 to the 2^nd respondent explaining that the petitioner's appointment was delayed due to court cases and certificate verification, and sought instructions for extending notional benefits. Another representation dated 30.06.2017 was submitted by the petitioner seeking notional seniority and parity in pay with juniors, but no response was received.

2. The petitioner contends that the denial of notional seniority and service benefits, despite her merit-based selection and the fact that less meritorious candidates were appointed earlier, is arbitrary and discriminatory. She challenges Proceedings Rc.No.11550/A4/2012 dated 22.04.2019 issued by the 3^rd respondent, and seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the respondents' inaction in granting her notional seniority with effect from 27.12.2012 and consequential benefits as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. Heard Mr. Ch. Jagannadha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for School Education, and learned Government Pleader for Services I and II. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would essentially contend that the petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) (Women) category, was selected for the post of School Assistant (Telugu) under DSC-2012 and secured Sl.No.17 in the selection list, but her appointment was wrongfully withheld due to ambiguity regarding her local candidature between Nalgonda and Ranga Reddy Districts. Despite her merit, she was denied timely appointment, while other candidates were appointed in 2012–2013. After approaching the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the Hon’ble Tribunal directed her appointment as a local candidate of Ranga Reddy District, which was upheld by the High Court. However, despite joining on 31.05.2014, her pay was fixed from the date of joining, unlike her juniors, depriving her of seniority and consequential benefits. The petitioner made repeated representations for notional seniority and parity in pay, which were ignored, and the rejection of her request by the 3^rd respondent was arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner would argue that the denial of notional seniority and service benefits, despite her merit-based selection, is unconstitutional, violating Articl