P RAMAKRISHNA Vs. DT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are in the feeder posts and are eligible for consideration for appointment to the posts in Category-2 in Division-4 under Rule 6 of the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1964, ('Rules' for short), seek a declaration that the action of the respondents in calling them for written examination scheduled to be held on 16th and 17th of November, 1996 for the purpose of promotion to the said Category-2 posts, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and seek a writ of mandamus to that effect.

(2.) The question raised in this writ petition turns on whether the appointment to the said Category-2 posts are merely on the basis of seniority or whether ability also has to be taken into reckoning. Rule 8 of the Rules is a clear answer. It states that promotion to the said Category-2 posts in Division-2 shall be made" on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal", and the posts themselves are described as selection posts. In view of this, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the posts in question are to be filled merely on the basis of seniority of the petitioners does not hold water.

(3.) In the counter affidavit of the first respondent filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the examination impugned in this writ petition was to be held for the purpose of short-listing the candidates pursuant to the Circular dated 1-7-1996 issued by the High Court, providing for certain norms and guidelines for appointments to be made to these posts in accordance with the Rules. It was in fact held and subsequently the short-listed candidates were interviewed. Short-listing of candidates when their number is large and all of them cannot be interviewed, is an accepted procedure usually adopted in making selections. The Supreme Court has also approved of the same in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar.