P SREEDHAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent-APSRTC issued a notification for recruitment to the post of Shramik on 23.12.2011. The notification was for 36 posts of Kadapa Region. The petitioner submitted his application for the said post. He is having certificate of ITI in Diesel Mechanic Trade, which is the required qualification for the said post. Besides the same, he studied up to Intermediate and undergone Apprenticeship Training with M/s. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Automobiles and passed National Trade Certificate during August 1998 to July 1999. He also completed trade certificate in Computer Operation and Programme Assistance. He belongs to BC-B Community. He was aged 29 years 11 months and 11 days and thus he is below the age of 30 years. In response to his application a call letter was sent to him on 04.02.2015. He attended the interview and produced all the certificates. He was provisionally selected for the said post and his name was shown at Sl.No.30. He was informed on 10.03.2015 that he was selected and was directed to undergo medical examination. Accordingly, he had undergone medical examination. He was sent for training by addressing letter dated 30.03.2015 to the Principal, Zonal Staff Training College, APSRTC, Kurnool. He was also sent to the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rajampet for attending Induction Training at Zonal Workshop, Kadapa, from 28.04.2015 to 30.04.2015. He also underwent training from 06.05.2015 to 18.05.2015 in the office of the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Kadapa. However, the second respondent issued office order dated 28.07.2015 appointing 35 employees deleting the name of the petitioner without assigning any reason. In view of his selection and training he left the job of Lab Assistant in Mechanical Engineering Department of Srinivasa Institute of Technology and Science, but by virtue of the action of the second respondent he lost the said job as well as the present job. He further states that no reasons were assigned for denying the employment even though he was selected. He submitted his representation on 03.08.2015 and when there was no response he filed the present Writ Petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the Chief Manager (Hyderabad) issued a letter on 24.12.2011 sanctioning 36 posts of Shramiks in Kadapa Region and accordingly the process for recruitment was initiated. The qualification mentioned in the Notification is ITI with Diesel Mechanic Trade. The selection was made giving different marks for qualification, possessing National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) and weightage for age. Though the possession of National Apprenticeship Certificate is not mandatory, 10 marks were awarded for those who have possessed the said certificate. During the selection process the petitioner produced two National Trade Certificates, one as Diesel Mechanic and the other as Computer Operator and Programming Assistant. While verifying the certificates, the selection committee, by mistake, treated one of the National Trade Certificates as National Apprenticeship Certificate and erroneously awarded 10 marks earmarked for National Apprenticeship Certificate. The petitioner was awarded 85.60 marks due to the said mistake and the cut-off marks for selection was 79.80 marks. The petitioner was sent for training along with others pending verification of the antecedents and genuineness of educational, technical qualification certificates, caste certificate etc. At that stage, one K. Mallikarjuna of Rayachoty submitted an application under the Right to Information Act requesting for information on the marks obtained by BC-B candidates who were selected for the post of Shramik. While compiling the information in response to the application under the Right to Information Act, it was noticed that the petitioner was not having National Apprenticeship Certificate. The petitioner vide letter dated 29.05.2015 also admitted that he is not having National Apprenticeship Certificate. If the 10 marks awarded for National Apprenticeship Certificate on mistake are deleted, the petitioner would get only 75.60 marks which is below the cut-off marks of 79.80 marks. Hence, he became ineligible for selection. Accordingly, the letters of appointment were issued to 35 candidates omitting the petitioner. A counseling session was held on 28.07.2015 where the petitioner attended and he was informed orally that his selection was kept in abeyance as there was error in awarding marks. In the notification it was clearly stated that the candidates have to enclose the following certificates along with the application i.e., (1) Date of Birth Certificate, (2) Caste Certificate, (3) ITI Certificate, (4) National Apprenticeship Certificate, (5) Educational Certificate, (6) Residential Certificate etc. The petitioner did not enclose the National Apprenticeship Certificate.

(3.) The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that the notification does not contain the requirement of possession of National Apprenticeship Certificate except the qualification of ITI with Diesel Mechanic Trade. Hence the reliance of the respondents on National Apprenticeship Certificate for selection was bad. The reply affidavit further states that since the procedure was not mentioned in the notification, the procedure adopted by the respondents is contrary to law. In respect of four persons though they did not possess National Apprenticeship Certificate, they were selected.