G NARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are working from 1955 onwards temporarily as Radio Supervisors. Their grievance is that for one reason or the other the Public Service Commission (3rd respondent herein as not chosen to select them for regular appointment with the lesult that the government is forced to keep them as temporary employees without regard to the fact that they are fully qualified for regular appointment as Radio Supervisors. The 1st petitioner obtained a certificate in Craftsmanship in Radio Servicing which the Government has declared as equivalent to Industrial School Leaving Certificate examination. He was appointed temproarily as Radio Supervisor by the proceedings the Chief Engineer dated. 10-10-1956 in the State Broadcasting branch which was at the time under the control ofthe Public Works Department. At the date of his appointment, no person above the age of 30 years would be eligibe for appointment as a Radio Supervisor. However, having regard to the fact that there were no qualified men within the age limit prescribed, the 1st petitioner was appointed temporarily by the Chief Engineer. In 1958. in response to the advertisement made by the P.S.C. he applied for regular appointment but his application was rejected on the around that he was over-aged. He again applied in 1962 with no better result. This time too his application was rejected on the ground that he was ever aee-1. However, the Government continued him in service as a temporary employee ard later, under Rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, the disqualification suffered by him on account of his over-age, was removed. Notwithstanding the removal of the disqualification by the Government, the P.S.C. again rejected his application in May, 1968 and again in April, 1972. He was, therefore, compelled to file this petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing respondents 1 and 2 to treat his appointment as a regular appointment with effect from the date he was first appointed to service on a temporaly basis. That is also the prayer of the 2nd Petitioner another Radio Supervisor, who has been continued on a temporary basis for the last 17 years. Though originally he was not over- aged when he appeared before the P.S C. his case was not considered on the ground that a certificate in Craftmanship in Radio Servicing and Maintenance cannot be considered to be equivalent to an Industrial School Leaving Certificate.

(2.) The Government though clarified the position and declaied that the certificate in Craftsmanship is equivalent to an Industrial School Leaving Certificate, the Public Service Commission did not consider his case on the ground that subsequently he became over-aged. When he was not over-aged, the Public Service Commission turned him out on the grouad that he did not possess the Industrial School Leaving Certificate and when the Government declared that the certiticate he obtained is equivalent to Industrial School Leaving Certifcate; his case was turned down on the ground that he had become over-aged with the result, for the last 17 years he has been continued temporarily without his services being regularised or confirmed.

(3.) It should be remembered that this court had earlier, in writ petition No. 475 of 1968, dated 1-9-1970. directed the petitioners therein who were all over-aged, to be interviewed by the Public Service Commission and the Commission had in fact interviewed them on 28-4-1972. The 1st petitioner was not one of the petitioners then and therefore he was moved this court. When the Government has relaxed the rule in exercise of its powers under Rule 47, it is not open to the Public Service Commission to say that he is not eligible to be considered or to take extraneous matter into consideration viz., that there are other candidates similarly situated and if he is interviewed or selected, it would amount to discrimination. It he is otherwise qualified, the Public Service Commission is bound to interview him. If he was found suitable and fit to continue in the post of a Radio Supervisor for the last 17 years, I fail to understand how it can be now said after the lapse of 17 years that he is not qualified to hold the post or that he has not got the prescribed qualiticatior.