//
you're reading...
legal issues

Group I service exams?= The writ petition is directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short the ‘Tribunal’) dated 30-12-2011, in a batch of applications being O.A.No.9928 of 2011 and batch. By the order impugned, the Tribunal directed stay of all further proceedings including conduct of interviews relating to selection of candidates to the posts of Group-I services notified under Notification No. 39 of 2008 and the Supplementary Notification No.10 of 2009=In order to provide a fair opportunity to all the candidates including candidates who appeared at the interviews to participate in the lis pendency before the Tribunal, we consider it appropriate to direct the State and the Commission to intimate in writing to each of the candidates who would appear at the interview, that the selection including the process of interviews will be subject to the result of original applications, pending adjudication before the Tribunal. The State Government shall also intimate that the selection is subject to the outcome of the original applications pending adjudication before the Tribunal by publicity in the daily press and electronic media. On the analysis and for the reasons above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of permitting the Commission to proceed with the process of selection including the process of oral interviews, pursuant to the general recruitment Notification No. 39 of 2008 and Supplemental Notification No. 10 of 2009, subject however to the condition that no orders of appointment shall be issued without obtaining specific orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 9928 of 2011 and batch.

 

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA

The Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly ...

Image via Wikipedia

RAGHURAM

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

 

W.P. No. 68  of 2012

          Dated 02-01-2012

 

Between:

 

The Secretary,

Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commision,

Andhra Pradesh, Nampally,

Hyderabad.

…Petitioner

Vs.

P. Prasanna Kumar and others.

…Respondents

 

 

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

W.P.No. 68 of 2012

 

Dated: 02-01-2012

 

ORAL ORDER: (Per: GR,J)

 

Heard the learned Advocate General for the Government Pleader for General Administration Department — the State; Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned senior advocate instructed by Sri K. R. Prabhakar; Sri A. Ramachandra Rao, and Sri M. Ram Gopal learned counsel for respondents in the writ petition.

The writ petition is directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short the ‘Tribunal’) dated 30-12-2011, in a batch of applications being O.A.No.9928 of 2011 and batch.  By the order impugned, the Tribunal directed stay of all further proceedings including conduct of interviews relating to selection of candidates to the posts of Group-I services notified under Notification No. 39 of 2008 and the Supplementary Notification No.10 of 2009.

Several allegations of inept and casual conduct of recruitment by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short ‘Commission’) are leveled in the clutch of original applications.  Inter alia, it was contended by the several applicants that some questions in the English and the Telugu languages to be answered in English or Telugu medium as the case may be, have incorporated either by accident or designe inaccuracies in the Telugu version of the comparable questions in the English medium paper which are inaccurate and wholly erroneous translations of the relevant English questions; that no key was furnished for evaluation of the answers furnished by the candidates who appeared in the Telugu medium; that there is lack of clarity as to whether marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination were considered in accordance with the notification and the methodology adopted for evaluation; and that the valuation was by persons not adequately conversant with the Telugu language, since the same evaluators had valued both the English and Telugu answer scripts.

On the basis of an inconclusive affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the original applications, the Tribunal foundprima facie material to infer errors in translation from English to the Telugu version of question papers. While directing the official respondents to file a comprehensive and responsive counter affidavit and observing that the matter requires a detailed analysis, the Tribunal directed stay of all further proceedings including conduct of interviews.

In the considered view of this Court, having regard to the fact that the process of selection for the notifications of the year 2008 and 2009 are still in process, adversely affecting the interest of the candidates who applied and the administrative requirements of the State; and given the apparent incongruities in the selection process as prima facie identified by the Tribunal, we consider it appropriate that the process of selections need not be interdicted in its entirety.  The integrity of the process of selection and the interests of applicants before the Tribunal would be adequately protected if the State and the Commission were directed not to finalize the selections by issuing orders of appointment pursuant to the selection initiated by the Commission, the other steps in the process of selection may however go on but subject to the decision in the original applications, by the Tribunal.

In order to provide a fair opportunity to all the candidates including candidates who appeared at the interviews to participate in the lis pendency before the Tribunal, we consider it appropriate to direct the State and the Commission to intimate in writing to each of the candidates who would appear at the interview, that the selection including the process of interviews will be subject to the result of original applications, pending adjudication before the Tribunal.

The State Government shall also intimate that the selection is subject to the outcome of the original applications pending adjudication before the Tribunal by publicity in the daily press and electronic media.

On the analysis and for the reasons above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of permitting the Commission to proceed with the process of selection including the process of oral interviews, pursuant to the general recruitment Notification No. 39 of 2008 and Supplemental Notification No. 10 of 2009, subject however to the condition that no orders of appointment shall be issued without obtaining specific orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 9928 of 2011 and batch.

Having regard to the fact that the lis presented in O.A.No. 9928 of 2011 and batch pending before the Tribunal pertains to recruitment of posts to Group-I services of the State, of the year 2008 and 2009, we consider it appropriate to request the Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of the batch of Original Applications.

The order of the Tribunal dated 30-12-2011 in O.A.No. 9928 of 2011 and batch impugned in this writ petition is modified as above.  There shall however be no order as to costs.

__________________________

                                                          JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

                                                    ___________________________________

                                      JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

 

 

Dated: 02-01-2012

Pvks/*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,476 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: