SAKINALA HARINATH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The time has come to act and the Court should react to the situation brought before it in W.P.M.P. No. 17958 of 1994.

(2.) To have an inkling of the background of the present W.P.M.P. 17958 of 1994 filed by the writ petitioners, few facts without going to the specifics and details are required to be stated. The genesis of the dispute between the parties traceable to the year 1989 when there was an extraordinary drive by the Respondents State and Panchayat Raj Institutions to recruit teachers specially called as 'Special Teachers' and 'Special Language pandits, 'thousands in number, to feed the needs of the educational institutions run and managed by the respondents State and Panchayat Raj Institutions. To enable this, the respondents State and Local Authorities had the enabling provisions in G.O.Ms. No. 429 dated 13-10-1983 issued by the State Government. Clause (rule) 6 of G.O.Ms. No. 429 specifically provided that the selection of the candidates to those posts shall be made by the District Selection Committee constituted in G.O.Ms. No. 289 Panchayat Raj Department dated 28-4-1993, in respect of posts sanctioned by the Government, for Government and Panchayat Raj Institutions. The said clause further provided that the procedure for selection as laid down in G.O.Ms. No. 716 Panchayat Raj Department dated 13-11-1981 shall be followed, by the District Selection Committees regarding calling of candidates from Employment Exchanges, written examination, interviews etc. The petitioners, among others, were applicants for the posts of Special Teachers and Special Language pandits. Tests were conducted, interviews were held; selection list of the candidates was prepared and the appointments were made. But, the petitioners were not appointed. The petitioners cried that they have secured 40% of marks in both written and oral tests and therefore they were entitled to be included in the select list and they were entitled to be appointed as Special Teachers and Special Language Pandits in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 716, Panchayat Raj Department dated 13-11-1981 read with G.O.Ms. No. 429 dated 13-10-1983. The petitioners also claimed that tne select list which is required to be prepared in terms of G.O.Ms. No 716 is required to be valid and should be operated till another list for the succeeding year is prepared. The cry of the petitioners went unheeded and unattended. The respondents State and Panchayat Raj Institutions resisted the claim of the petitioners contending that the select list is required to be prepared not in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 716 but in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 231, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development department dated 31-3-1989 and therefore the petitioners were not entitled to be included in the select list. The respondents also contended that the select list could be valid only for a period of one year from the date of its approval by the District Selection committee as provided in G.O.Ms. No. 231.

(3.) The dispute between the parties was carried before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, shortly referred to as the 'A.P.A.T. constituted under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in R.P. Nos. 23505 to 23515 of 1989 and connected R.Ps. O. As and M.As. Among other questions the questions raised before the A.P.A.T. were i) whether the selection of the candidates for the posts of Special Teachers and Special Language Pandits was governed by the provisions of G.O.Ms. No. 716 or G.O.Ms. No. 231 and ii) what is the currency of the select lists prepared for the posts of special Teachers and whether it was current till the next list was prepared as urged for the petitioners or for only one year from the date of approval as urged by the respondents. The Bench of the A.P.A.T. speaking through its the then Chairman. K.S. Puttaswamy, J. by its judgment dated 22-8-1990 ruled that the selection of the candidates for the posts of Special Teachers and the currency of the select list for the posts of Special Teachers were governed by ' the provisions of G.O.Ms. No. 716. In view of the said finding, the A.P.A.T. issued certain consequential directions to the respondents. There is no dispute that the judgment and order of the A.P.A.T. dated 22-8-1990 has become final inasmuch as nobody had filed any further appeal against the said judgment and order till date. The respondents, despite judgment and order of the A.P.A.T. did not appoint the petitioners. The frustrated petitioners looked helpless and without remedy. Therefore the petitioners approached this court in W.P. No 518 of 1993 and connected writ petitions seeking directions to the respondents to appoint them as Special Teachers and to enforce the judgment and order made by the A.P.A.T. dated 22-8-1990. While doing so, the petitioners also called in question the constitutional validity of Article 323-A(2)(d) of the Constitution of India to the extent it empowers Parliament by law, to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226. The petitioners also sought a declaration that Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to the extent it divests the High Courts of their jurisdiction under Article 226 as unconstitutional. The W.P, 518/1993 and batch of connected writ petitions and writ appeals landed before the Full Bench of this Court for decision on reference. The Full Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 26- 10-1993 declared that Article 323-A(2)(d) of the Constitution of India is unconstitutional to the extent it empowers parliament, by law, to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The Full Bench also declared that Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to the extent is divests the High Court of its jurisdiction under Article 226 is unconstitutional. However, the Full Bench declined to decide the writ petitions and the writ appeals on merits on the ground that the petitioners and the appellants have an effective, alternate remedy before the A.P.A.T. The Full Bench further directed that if the petitioners approached the A.P.A.T., the A.P.AT. shall entertain their representations and dispose of them in accordance with law.