Gadi Bhagavan Das vs Superintending Engineer & Others

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to be considered for the post of Junior Lineman Grade-II, pursuant to the notification issued by the Respondent No.3 vide its Notification No File No.EPCOR-06002(33)/1/2019-MPS-1COR dated:31-07-2019 and appoint him as Junior Lineman Grade-II, by awarding him weightage marks for his 12 year service as shift operator and by taking into consideration his successful Pole Test, Meter reading test, Cycling test held on 28-09-2019 and pass such other further order or orders…”

The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action by not giving weightage marks to the petitioner. While submitting the application of the petitioner to the notification issued by the respondents the petitioner has not filed his service certificate which he possesses. Having not filed the service certificate the petitioner has not considered the weightage marks of the petitioner by the respondents. The respondents filed a counter and stated that:

In reply to para 2, it is submitted that the policy of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the APEPDCL issued notification on 31.07.2019 vide Ref.No.EPCOR-06005(33)/1/2019-MPS-1COR for filling up the 2859 post of junior lineman Grade-II on consolidated basis for a period of 2 years and the online application will be available on APEPDCL website from 02.08.2019 to 17.08.2019. The selected candidates on appointment will be deployed to work in the village secretariats/ward secretariats established in the Gram Panchayats/Wards as per GO.MS.No.110 Panchayat Raj and Rural development (MDL-1) Department Dated.19.07.2019 and GO.MS.No.217 MA & UD (UBS) Department Dated 20.07.2019.

In fact at page No.10, Point No.11 & 13 of notification issued by the APEPDCL authorities for JLM Grade-II, it was clearly mentioned that “if the particulars furnished in the online application form do not tally with the original documents produced by the candidature will be rejected. And the particulars furnished by the applicant in the application form will be taken as final. Candidates should, therefore, be very careful in uploading/submitting the application form online. Further the petitioner has submitted his second application on 11.08.2019 without mentioning that he has a length of service of 12 years as shift operator.

In reply to para 3,it is submitted that, the petitioner previously filed WP No.13377 of 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of AP., while disposing of the said the Writ Petition

“to directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to make the calculation of marks as per the CBSE formula which is GPA *9.5*0.8 and submit the same to the respondents and the respondents shall consider the marks calculated, based on the said formula and permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process subject to the petitioner coming under the criteria prescribed for zone of consideration”

In obedience of the Orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court the respondents has conducted tests for all the writ petitioners including the petitioner on 28.09.2019 at Simhachalam in Visakhapatnam.

It is further submitted that, as per the above selection procedure, the merit shall considered on the basis of the date entered in online application by candidate and the same shall be cross checked form the office records. The candidature will be considered for further tests as mentioned in notification after verification of the original certificates and tallying with the data entered in online application at the test centers at respective circles, In case of any details found contrary to the details submitted in online application, the candidature will be rejected”

Though the petitioner secured more marks than the last cut off candidates, failed to furnish the actual information in online application. The candidature of the individual was rejected on the ground of “as per online application, he ahs not submitted as in service candidate. As per the notification online application is criteria for selection. Hence his case is not considered as in service candidate.”

Based on the orders, the petitioners in those case were called for to participate in the selection process on 28.09.2019 and appointment orders were issued on 30.09.2019 and all the meritorious candidates are joined accordingly and the process of recruitment was completed by 02-10-2019.

All the appointed candidates orientation programme was also conducted at division level on 03.10.2019 & 04.10.2019. The Government of AP state village/ward secretaries with effect from 02.10.2019. Since the recruitment process is completed, after completion of joining of selected candidates in their respect places the instant Writ petition is not maintainable. The instant writ petition may be dismissed on the ground alone.

This Hon’ble Court passed interim order directing the respondents to reserve one post.

In the similar circumstances, the Supreme Court of India in Food Corporation of India Vs.Rimjhim 2019(5)SSC 793 has held in the following manner:

“Now so far as the submission on behalf of the FCI that a candidate must and/or ought to have produced the experience certificate along with the application is concerned, at this stage, a decision of this Court in Charles K.Skaria v. C.Mathew (1980) 2 SCC 752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305 and the subsequent decision of this Court in Dolly Chanada v.JEE (2005) 9 SCC 779 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 734 : 5 SCEC 475 are required to be referred to. In Charles K.Skaria, this Court had an occasion to consider the distinction between the essential requirements and the proof/mode of proof. In the aforesaid case, this Court had an occasion to consider the distinction between a fact and its proof. In the aforesaid case before this Court, a candidate/ student was entitled to extra 10% marks for holders of a diploma and the diploma must be obtained on or before the last date of the application, not later. In the aforesaid case, a candidate secured diploma before the final date of application, but did not produce the evidence of diploma along with the application. Therefore, he was not allowed extra 10% marks and therefore denied the admission. Dealing with such a situation, this Court observed and held that what was essential requirement was that a candidate must have obtained the diploma on or before the last date of application but not later, and that is the primary requirement and to submit the proof that the diploma is obtained on or before a particular date as per the essential requirement is secondary. This Court specifically observed and held that “What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification”. This Court specifically observed and held that “To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity.”

Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two cases to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the Division Bench has rightly set aside the action of the FCI in rejecting the case of the original writ petitioner and has rightly directed the FCI to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for appointment on merits, if all other conditions stand satisfied. while submitting the application, if the petitioner has not filed the service certificate, the same can be considered at the point of selection. Considering the judgment of the Apex Court, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.