Kancharla Alivelu vs State Of Telangana

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20745 of 2017 dt.31-08-2018.

Heard Sri D.Lakshminarayana, Party-in-Person, and the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the 1st respondent.

It has been contended by the appellant that he is a practising advocate and his grievance is that the respondents have rejected his case vide

impugned orders dt.06-05-2017 wherein his case was rejected for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in Zone-6 under BC-D

category. Challenging the said rejection orders, the appellant has filed W.P.No.20745 of 2017 before this Court and the learned Single Judge was

pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition vide orders dt.31-08-2018. The appellant had contended that the he is a member belonging to BC-D community

and he is fully eligible and qualified to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor.

The appellant had further contended that the 2nd respondent has issued notification on 29-12-2006 inviting applications for the post of Assistant

Public Prosecutor in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant had responded to the said Notification and participated in the selection and

he has faired decently well in the selection process and the grievance of the appellant is that though he has secured 179.75 marks, his case was not

considered under open category in Zone-6 as no posts for BC-D category were notified. The appellant had further contended that during 1992 and

1996, the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was filled up by treating the said post as state-wide post and many non-local candidates were appointed

in the said post. The appellant had further contended that the selections were made during 1992 and 1996 by the respondents by treating it as Zonal

post by following the presidential order and also sought a direction to consider the case of the appellant for appointment to the post of Assistant Public

Prosecutor under BC-D category. The appellant had further contended that the learned Single Judge had erroneously dismissed the said case without

appreciating any of the facts raised by the appellant. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders of the

learned Single Judge and also further direct the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for appointment to the post of Assistant Public

Prosecutor in pursuance to the notification dt.29-12-2006.

Learned Government Pleader for respondents has contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the case of the appellant and the

learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant having participated in the selection process, cannot turn around and contend that one post be

notified for BC-D category. If the appellant is aggrieved for not notifying any vacancies for BC-D category, he ought to have challenged the

notification itself. But he cannot not challenge the same after having participated in the selection process and when the appellant could not get selected

under OC general category, the appellant has turned around and filed the present Writ Petition. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and

the same is liable to be dismissed.

This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed

the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant in the following manner:

“Having heard the party-in-person and the learned Assistant Government Pleader and in the facts and circumstances of the case and in

considered view of this Court, it is found that the petitioner having participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Public

Prosecutor in pursuance of the notification dated 29.12.2006 in the State of Andhra Pradesh estopped from challenging the notification, on

ground of non-reserving the post for BC-D category. As on the date of notification, the petitioner was well aware that there is no post

reserved for BC-D category. He participated in the selection process as a general candidate and obtained 179.75 marks, whereas the

selected OC (general) category candidate in Zone-VI secured 199.75 marks. Having not selected and appointed for the post in the general

category, the petitioner resorted to file O.As before the Tribunal and writ petitions before this Court by raising untenable grounds that the

respondents have filled up the post of Assistant Public Prosecutors in pursuance of the notifications issued in the year 1992 and 1996

treating the post as state-wide post instead of zonal post as per the presidential order and the respondents could have selected and filled up

the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in pursuance of the notification dated 29.12.2006 treating the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor as

zonal post. The respondents ought to have filled the posts by starting from roster point ‘1’ instead of ‘98’. If they have started

roster points from ‘1’ at point No.39 in cycle of 100 points, there is a reserved post meant for BC-D category as the respondents have

filled 40 vacancies in Zone-VI and at point No.39, BC-D category post is available. In that vacancy, he could have selected and appointed.

In the earlier round of litigation fought by the petitioner in the writ petition No.9965 of 2010, the same grounds were considered and

rejected.

This Court found that the notification was issued in the year 2006 and the entire process of selection was completed and thereafter, the

petitioner started litigating the selection process and to review the selections made in pursuance of the notifications issued in the years 1992

and 1996 to accommodate the petitioner and appoint him as Assistant Public Prosecutor under BC-D category, which is even not notified in

the notification issued. The petitioner has not challenged the notification dated 29.12.2006, but he has participated in the selection process

and due to non-selection, he started litigation ventilating his grievance, which were considered and rejected in the earlier litigations fought

by the petitioner.

The contention of the petitioner does not merit consideration as contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner

having participated in the selection process without any demur estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance

with the Rules as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik (1 supra). Hence, the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed. The petitioner also not made the selected candidates as party-respondents to this writ petition. For non-joining of proper and

necessary parties also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.â€​

The learned Single Judge has categorically held that the appellant having participated in the selection process is estopped from challenging the

notification on the ground of non-reservation of one post for BC-D category and the appellant having failed in the selections cannot turn around and

challenge the very same selections made by the respondents and the appellant has also not made any selected candidates as party in the Writ Petition

and on that ground also, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

impugned order and the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.