P JHANSI Vs. TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the controversy involved in both these writ petitions, is one and the same, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) WP Nos.3853 and 5233 of 2002 have been preferred by one P. Jhansi and T.Ravi who are the petitioners respcetively, seeking for a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in selecting and appointing the 3rd respondent as A.P.R.O. vide proceedings dated 16.2.2002 as arbitrary and illegal and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as A.P.R.O. in pursuance to the selections held on 15-2-2002.

(3.) The backdrop of the case, which led to the filing of these writ petitions, is that the petitioner- P. Jhansi is a post-graduate in Mass Communication and Journalism and she worked as a Public Relation Officer in a Public Limited Company for 3 years. The petitioner- T.Ravi has been working as Assistant Translator in the Office of the Public Relations Officer of T.T.D. Tirupathi since 1995 without any blemish nor adverse remarks. He completed M.A. in English Literature, M.A. in Advertising and Public Relations, B.Ed., Bachelor of Public Relations, Diploma in Computers and Diploma in Temple Culture. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. The 3rd respondent who was working in T.T.D. as Superintendent in the Educational Department, is aged about 55 years. The 1st respondent notified the post of Assistant Public Relations Officer in Eenadu Daily on 28-7-2001. The candidate should possess Masters Degree in M.A., M.Sc., Degree or Diploma in Journalism or Public Relations and three years experience in the field of Public Relations. The upper age of the candidate shall be above 35 years. There is a relaxation of 5 years provided for S.C., S.T. and B.C. candidates. In the said notification, it was also stated that in service candidates can also apply for the post. The petitioners and the 3rd respondent have also applied for the said post. Written examination was held on 15-2-2002 and 26 candidates appeared for the written test. The mode of appointment is not by promotion, but it is by way of direct recruitment. The 3rd respondent is aged about 55 years and is not eligible for the post since he is over aged. The 1st respondent short listed of three candidates viz., the petitioners and the 3rd respondent. The whole process of selection was held on the same day and in a hurried manner. The respective case of the petitioners, is that they did well in the written examination and they are eligible for appointment. The 3rd respondent is not at all eligible for being considered for the post of A.P.R.O. and that entertaining the application of the 3rd respondent itself, was irregular. But, respondents 1 and 2 appointed the 3rd respondent and the same is arbitrary and illegal. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been preferred.