KALLURI VASAYYA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES KHAMMAM DIVISION KHAMMAM AND POSTMASTER GENERAL ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises an important ques|tion as to the power of, and the procedure to be followed by, the Government in the matter of verification of antecedents of persons selected for appointment to public posts. The relevant facts are not in dispute and may briefly be stated.

(2.) In pursuance to an advertisement issued by the Posts and Telegraphs Department, the petitioner, a graduate in Science, applied for appointment to the post of time-scale clerk. He was asked to, and did appear for selection on 12th April, 1978. Four persons, including the petitioner, were selected. Before issuing the order of appointment, the petitioner was called upon to furnish information, in the prescribed pro forma, with respect to his Character and antecedents. In that form, the petitioner disclosed that he was convicted for in offence under section 25-A of the Indian Arms Act, in C.C. No. 12 of 1970 and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madhira; that, the sentence was modified to four months' rigorous imprisonment, in appeal and that, finally, in Crl.R.C. No. 537 of 1970, this Court released him under section 562, Criminal Procedure Code, on probation of good conduct, on his entering into a bond for Rs. 2,000 with two sureties for like sum, for a period of two years. He submitted that the two years' period was over with put any complaint regarding his conduct. Thereupon, the appointing authority requested the Collector, Khammam, to report with respect to the petitioner's character and antecedents. In his letter dated 13th September, 1978, the Collector, Khammam, reported as follows:- "(i) I invite attention to the reference cited. The Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in the reference 4th cited has reported that Kalluri Vasaiah S/o. Sri Seetharamaiah was an extremist underground member of Chandra Pulla Reddy group during 1968 and 1969. On the intervening night of 16/17th September, 1969 this individual along with five other underground extremists all armed with S.B.M.L. guns were arrested in Ginnelavagu of Gopalapet forest. Six unlicensed S. B. M. L. Guns and two country-made bombs were seized from their possession vide Cr. No. 21 of 1969 under section 25 (i) (a), Indian Arms Act and section 5 of Explosives Act of Wyra Police Station of Khammam District. Sri Vasaiali was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment one year along with other accused in C.C. No. 12 of 1970 by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madhira on 23rd April, 1970. On appeal by the accused in the Sessions Court, Khammam, the sentence was reduced to 4 months rigorous imprisonment, in Cr.A. No. 10 of 1970. On further appeal in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the order of the Sessions Judge was modified and the accused was released under section 562, Criminal Procedure Code, on probation of good conduct on the personal bond of Rs. 2,000 with two sureties of like amount. (ii) Since his release from jail, Vasaiah worked as Plain Area Organiser of the Extremist Party in Khammam Taluk by harbouring the underground Extremists and arranging contracts to them with the Plain Area Cadres of the extremist party. (iii) Still he is closely moving with the P. D. S. U., and other sympathisers of the extremists like Vaddeli Krishna Murthy etc. (iv) He attended the State 2nd General Council Meeting of the P. D. S. U., held at Merchants' Association Hall, Khamman, from 2nd July, 1978 to 5th July, 1978. (v) He was elected as Joint Secretary of the Indo-China Friendship Association, Khammam District, on 5th April, 1974. (vi) In view of the above facts, it is not desirable to appoint him in Government service........". For the sake of convenient reference, I have divided the report into several paragraphs and marked them consecutively as (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi).

(3.) In view of the said report, the petitioner was not appointed or deputed for training, while the other three candidates selected along with the petitioner were so appointed and deputed. The petitioner then made a representation complaining against the same. According to him, he was informed by the 1st respondent, i.e., the Superintendent of Post Offices, Khammam Division, that he was not sent for training in view of the adverse report received against him from the Collector. The contents of the report were, however, not disclosed to the petitioner, nor was he given an opportunity to have his say with respect to the contents thereof. The petitioner then approached this Court by way of this writ petition.