CHEBOYINA KARTHIK Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.2 in not appointing the petitioner as Assistant in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by considering his candidature under BC-D Category as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 vide Notification No.2 of 2021 dtd. 9/9/2021 invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant and Examiner in the High Court Services by Direct Recruitment from the eligible candidates. He submits that the petitioner at that relevant point of time was effected with Covid-19 and therefore requested one of his friends to apply for the post of Assistant on behalf of the petitioner, as he was not in a position to apply for the same in person. The learned counsel submits that accordingly an application was submitted on behalf of the petitioner through online and in the test conducted by the High Court the petitioner was provisionally selected, but the petitioner was shown in "BC-B" Category List, whereas he belongs to "BC-D" Category. He submits that the petitioner on enquiry learnt from his friend that while applying for the post of Assistant, due to mistaken impression that the petitioner belongs to "BC-B" Category, the application was submitted under the said Category. In those circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner made a representation on 25/3/2022 to the 2nd respondent. He further submits that subsequently the petitioner came to know that one Mr.Kasireddy Sarath Chandra, who was appointed as Assistant under "BC-D" Category left the job, as he got selection in the State Bank of India and as a post fell vacant under "BC-D" Category, the petitioner again made another representation on 19/4/2022 to the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner"s candidature under the said Category. He submits that as the petitioner"s representations had not yielded any result, much less, any positive response, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief.