S JAFFAR SAHIB Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having failed to persuade the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') to entertain the application filed by him in the year 2005 for quashing the appointment of Sri Satyanarayana Murthy (respondent No.2) and Sri R. Ramakrishnaiah (respondent No.3) to the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Executive Branch) (hereinafter referred to as 'the service') against the posts advertised by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short, 'the Commission') on 28-1-1980, and for issue of a mandamus to the State Government to re-consider his case for appointment as Deputy Collector with retrospective effect from 1981, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) While he was working as Mandal Revenue Officer, the petitioner applied for recruitment to the service for which advertisement had been issued by the Commission on 28-1-1980. He secured 360 marks out of 600 in the written test and 94 out of 200 in the oral interview. His name is said to have been placed at No.3 among the Open Category Candidates, but, he was not appointed. After almost 16 years, the petitioner submitted representation dated 14-5-1997 for correction of what he claimed to be an apparent mistake in the select list. This was followed by some more representations. One of his representations was rejected by the State Government vide communication dated 16-8-1999. Another representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the Government vide Letter No.70096/Ser.I(l)/99, dated 14-12-1999. The same reads as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_785_ALD3_2007Html1.htm</FRM> After more than five years, the petitioner again represented for re-consideration of his case, but his request was turned down by the State Government vide Letter No.14587/ Ser.I(l)/2005-l, dated 15-2-2005, which reads as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_785_ALD3_2007Html2.htm</FRM>

(3.) Immediately after receiving communication dated 15-2-2005, the petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') for quashing the same and also for issue of a direction to respondent No.1 to appoint him as Deputy Collector with all consequential benefits.