M ARIFFUDDIN NIZAMI Vs. D D CHITALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Writ Appeals are directed against the judgment of our learned brother Ramachandra Rao, J., allowing the Writ Petition presented by respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashing the order of the State Government in G.O. Ms. No. 8, Education, dated 3rd January, 1966. Respondents 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the Writ Petition are the appellants in W.A. No. 100 of 1971 and respondent No. 4 is the appellant in W.A. No. 150 of 1971.

(2.) The short and relevant facts necessary for the decision of these appeals may briefly be stated : Applications were invited On 1st September, 1964, by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for appointment of one Associate Professor in Architecture, four Assistant Professors in Architecture and four Lecturers in Architecture in the Andhra Pradesh Technical Education Service. The Writ Petitioners 1 and 2 who traced the history of their clean and unblemished record of service from 1945 and 1939 respectively claim to be highly qualified and experienced persons in. Architecture. Suffice to say that they were working as Lecturers in Architecture in the Government College of Fine Arts and Architecture, Hyderabad at the material time. Both the petitioners vehimently protested against the advertisement of all the posts of Assistant Professors by direct recruitment ignoring their seniority-cum-merit and suitability for promotion as Assistant Professors. However, in response to the advertisement the Writ petitioners also applied for direct recruitment to the post of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in Architecture and their applications were forwarded by the Government in their letter No 5716 01-64-2, Education, dated 25th October, 1964, with a recommendation that in case the two candidates were otherwise qualified, the Government proposed to relax age Rules and General Rule 3 (15) in their favour. Pursuant to such recommendation of the Government, the Service Commission entertained the applications of respondents 1 and 2. Under rule 5 (2) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, the Director of Technical Education who is the Head of the Department was requested by the Commission in its letter No.997 -G/ 1964, dated 14th December, 1964, to be present with the Commission at the time of the oral test for the said posts or in the alternative to nominate a representative who is an officer next to him in rank or grade. Thereupon, the Director of Technical Education by his letter No.B-683/1964 /dated 17th December, 1964, nominated Sri Salamath Ali Khan, Principal of the College of Fine Arts and Architecture, Hyderabad to be present with the Commission at the time of the oral test of the candidates. It appears that the said Salamath Ali Khan who sat with the Commission at the time of the interview of the respondents and the appellants entered earlier into an agreement of partnership in a private Consortium of Architects with some of the applicants. The Commission found that the petitioners were not eligible to be considered for promotion and selected respondents 4 to 12 on merit. Accordingly, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 8, Education, dated 3rd January, 1966 approving the selection of these candidates made by the Service Commission by the method of direct recruitment and appointing them in various posts mentioned therein. Petitioners 1 and 2 aggrieved by this selection made a representation to the Government unsuccessfully on 13th August, 1935, and ultimately filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the G.O. passed by the Government ,on 3rd January, 1966, appointing respondents 4 to 12 to the posts mentioned therein alleging infer alia that the selection made by the Service Commission and the appoinments based thereon made by the Government were vitiated by the bias of Sri Salamath Ali Khan who was enmeshed in the familar net of professional obligations towards his associates and partners in the profession and that all the posts should not have been filled up by direct recruitment ignoring the just claims of the petitioners for promotion to the next higher post.

(3.) The learned Single Judge upheld both the contentions and allowed the Writ Petition.