G. Narayan and another vs The State of A.P. and 2 others

Obul Reddy

The Petitioners are working from 1956 onwards temporarily as Radio Supervisors. Their grievance is that for one reason or the other the Public Service Commission (3rd respondent herein) as not chosen to select them for regular appointment with the result that the government is forced to keep them as temporary employees without regard to the fact that they are fully qualified for regular appointment as Radio Supervisors. The 1st petitioner obtained a certificate in Craftsmanship in Radio Servicing which the Government has declared as equivalent to Industrial School Leaving Certificate examination. He was appointed temporarily as Radio Supervisor by the proceedings the Chief Engineer dated. 10-10-1956 in the State Broadcasting branch which was at the time under the control of the Public Works Department. At the date of his appointment, no person above the age of 30 years would be eligible for appointment as a Radio Supervisor. However, having regard to the fact that there were no qualified men within the age limit prescribed, the 1st petitioner was appointed temporarily by the Chief Engineer. In 1958, in response to the advertisement made by the P.S.C. he applied for regular appointment but his application was rejected on the around that he was over-aged. He again applied in 1962 with no better result. This time too, his application was rejected on the ground that he was over aged. However, the Government continued him in service as a temporary employee and later, under Rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, the disqualification suffered by him on account of his over-age, was removed. Notwithstanding the removal of the disqualification by the Government, the P.S.C. again rejected his application in May, 1968 and again in April, 1972. He was, therefore, compelled to file this petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing respondents 1 and 2 to treat his appointment as a regular appointment with effect from the date he was first appointed to service on a temporary basis. That is also the prayer of the 2nd Petitioner another Radio Supervisor, who has been continued on a temporary basis for the last 17 years. Though originally he was not over-aged when he appeared before the P.S.C. his case was not considered on the ground that a certificate in Craftsmanship in Radio Servicing and Maintenance cannot be considered to be equivalent to an Industrial School Leaving Certificate. The Government though clarified the position and declared that the certificate in Craftsmanship is equivalent to an Industrial School Leaving Certificate, the Public Service Commission did not consider his case on the ground that subsequently he became over-aged. When he was not over-aged, the Public Service Commission turned him out on the ground that he did not possess the Industrial School Leaving Certificate and when the Government declared that the certificate he obtained is equivalent to Industrial School Leaving Certificate, his case was turned down on the ground that he had become over-aged with the result, for the last 17 years he has been continued temporarily without his services being regularised or confirmed.

It should be remembered that this court had earlier, in writ petition No. 475 of 1968, dated 1-9-1970, directed the petitioners therein who were all over-aged, to be interviewed by the Public Service Commission and the Commission bad in fact interviewed them on 28-4-1972. The 1st petitioner was not one of the petitioners then and therefore he was moved this court. When the Government has relaxed the rule in exercise of its powers under Rule 47, it is not open to the Public Service Commission to say that he is not eligible to be considered or to take extraneous matter into consideration viz., that there are other candidates similarly situated and if he is interviewed or selected, it would amount to discrimination. It he is otherwise qualified, the Public Service Commission is bound to interview him. If he was found suitable and fit to continue in the post of a Radio Supervisor for the last 17 years, I fail to understand how it can be now said after the lapse of 17 years that he is not qualified to hold the post or that he has not got the prescribed qualification. The reasons given by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit filed on its behalf by us Secretary are, in my opinion, untenable. The question of the 1st petitioner not being within the enhanced age limit does not arise after the Government had exercised its powers under Rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules.

So far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, when he was fully qualified, he was told that his technical qualification cannot be taken into consideration and when the Government clarified the position, the Public Service Commission rejected his claim on the ground that he had by then become over-aged. It would appear that the claims of the 2nd petitioner were rejected for no fault of his on a misunderstanding of the position regarding the technical qualification prescribed for the post of a Radio Supervisor. The 1st petitioner, it is well to remember, also obtained a similar certificate and his case was not rejected on the ground that he did not possess the requisite technical qualification but on the ground that he was over-aged. That being the case, I fail to understand how it can be contended by the 3rd respondent that the certificate in Craftsmanship was not the requisite qualification for a Radio Supervisor on what is called the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Respondents 1 and 2 having continued the petitioners for nearly 17 years cannot now ask them to go home merely for the reason that on some untenable grounds the Public Service Commission has chosen not to select them as Radio Supervisors.

Though the Government is ordinarily bound by the advice of the Public Service Commission, in exceptional cases of this nature, the Government being the ultimate authority can regularies the appointments of the two petitioners with effect from the dates they were originally entertained. As has been started by Sinha, J., (as he then was) in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manboshan Lal.

It is clear that the requirement of the consultation with the commission does not extend to making the advice of the Commission on those matters binding on the Government. In the absence of such a bidding character, it is difficult to see how non-compliance with the provisions of Art. 320(3) (c) could have the effect of nullifying the final order passed by the Government.

These are very hard cases and if the services of the petitioners are not regularised, it will not only result in hardship to them but will also result in manifest injustice. The petitioners, who have put in 17 years of temporary service, cannot be told on one fine morning to go home because the Public Service Commission has not chosen to select them. That is, therefore, eminently a fit case where the doctrine of equitable estoppel should be invoked and the Government directed to regularise the services of the petitioners with effect from the date the two petitioners were first entertained in service. A writ of mandamus shall issue accordingly to respondents 1 and 2. The writ petition is allowed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only.)