TELANGANA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. PONUGUPATI RAJANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2018, passed by a learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.24311 of 2017, whereby the learned Single Judge has concluded that the respondent No.1- the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') did not suppress any material fact, and directed the appellant - the respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent No.2') to declare the result of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, and in case the petitioner stands in the merit list as per her entitlement, to issue the appointment letter, the respondent No.2 has challenged the said order.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Ponugupati Rajani, had completed her B.Sc. B.Ed and M.Ed. In 2008, the respondent No.2 - the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC), (the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) then) had issued a Teachers Recruitment Notification. Since the petitioner was hopeful that she would be appointed to the post of School Assistant (Maths), she applied for the same. Being successful in the selection process, by order dated 16.10.2009, she was appointed as a School Assistant on apprenticeship basis. According to the order dated 16.10.2009, she was appointed as an apprentice for a period of two years. During this period, she was entitled only to a stipend, and not to a regular pay scale.

(3.) While things stood thus, the respondent No.2 published a notification, namely Notification No.18/2011, dated 28.11.2011, calling for applications online from the qualified and eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Group-I Services. According to the Notification, there were 312 vacancies. While 103 vacancies were available for OC (General), forty-three vacancies were available for OC (Women). Since the petitioner was hopeful that she would be selected for Group-I post, she applied under the said notification. On 27.05.2012, the petitioner undertook a Screening Test (Preliminary Examination). According to the results of the Preliminary Examination, she had succeeded in passing the said examination. However, as few candidates were aggrieved by the answer key issued by the respondent No.2, they challenged the same before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. After the learned Tribunal passed its order, the matter was carried before the former High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.6009 of 2013. By order dated 19.02.2013, the Hon'ble High Court granted an interim order directing that appointments shall not be made in pursuance of the result of the main examination. By further order dated 26.07.2013, the Hon'ble High Court directed that the answer key should be referred to a Committee to be constituted by the Union Public Service Commission. Since the APPSC was aggrieved by the said order, it had filed an S.L.P., namely S.L.P.No.25157 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In its judgment dated 07.10.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared that the answers to six of the questions were incorrect. Therefore, it directed that the answers of the candidates must be subjected to correction while deleting the answers to these six questions. Since the APPSC was aggrieved by the said judgment dated 07.10.2013, it filed a Review Application. However, by order dated 06.08.2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Review Application. Despite the fact that the APPSC has filed curative petition, namely Curative Petition (C) Nos.6,7,8 and 9 of 2015, the same was dismissed by the Apex Court by its order dated 25.02.2015.