THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 5675 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings R.C. No.4155/B3/2010, dated 24.02.2011 issued by the sixth respondent. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition may be stated as follows: ‘Saakshar Bharat’, a scheme sponsored by the Government of India, has been introduced in the State of Andhra Pradesh by the second respondent. Mandal Coordinator post was earlier called as ‘Prerak’. The fourth respondent is the Vice Chairperson of District Lok Siksha Samithi of Ananthapur District. The fourth respondent issued proceedings Rc.No.75/GLOSISA/APO (M)/2010, dated 24.07.2010 framing guidelines for appointment of Mandal Coordinators, in pursuance of the G.O. Rt. No.203, Education (P.E. PROG.I) Department, dated 13.04.2010. The petitioner is fully qualified for the said post and he was appointed by the respondent no.7 in the said post for Parigi Mandal vide appointment order dated 01.08.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent no.8 herein filed Writ Petition No.21897 of 2010, and this court disposed of the same with a direction to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner therein i.e. R.8 herein, with a specific direction to issue notice to the petitioner before passing any orders thereon. But, instead of sixth respondent, the fourth respondent passed order dated 14.10.2010, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, setting aside appointment of petitioner and appointing the respondent no.8 in his place. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.26780 of 2010, wherein interim suspension was granted. When the said Writ Petition was pending, the sixth respondent issued notice dated 29.11.2010 to the petitioner to give explanation and challenging the same, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition NO.30716 of 2010. This court disposed of both the above Writ Petitions directing the petitioner to submit explanation and to continue the petitioner till such time. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted explanation dated 15.12.2010. Thereafter, the sixth respondent issued a notice to conduct enquiry fixing date on 02.02.2011. The petitioner appeared before the sixth respondent. The respondent no.8 was also present on the said date. Though the petitioner pleaded that the certificates obtained by the respondent no.8 were forged including the signatures as well as rubber stamps, etc. of the competent authorities, the respondent no.6 without considering the same and without examining the facts and circumstances, passed the impugned order declaring that the petitioner applied for the recruitment by submitting residence certificates of both Gorantla and Parigi Mandals to get illegal benefit by way of wrong tracking them, and accordingly, set aside the appointment order dated 01.08.2010 of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The sixth respondent filed counter affidavit stating as follows: The petitioner applied for the post of Mandal Coordinator for both Gorantla and Parigi Mandals. He enclosed permanent Nativity Certificates, Ration Card, Voter ID card issued by the revenue authorities for Gorantla Mandal, and for Parigi Mandal, he enclosed residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar, as proof of residence. The petitioner was not selected for Gorantla Mandal, but he was selected for Parigi Mandal. The eighth respondent submitted two certificates that he worked on two spells from 01.11.2004 to 31.03.2006 and 02.05.2006 to 30.09.2009 as Nodal Prerak under Continuing Education Programme. The Project Officer, Adult Education, Anantapur conducted enquiry which revealed that Ex.Mandal Literacy Organizer stated that the certificate was not issued to the eighth respondent to the effect that he worked as Nodal Prerak for the period from 02.05.2006 to 30.09.2009. But, during enquiry before the sixth respondent, he admitted that signature affixed on the certificate that he worked from 01.11.2004 to 31.03.2006 as Nodal Prerak, and so, the said period was taken into consideration for appointing him as Mandal Coordinator. The petitioner was issued due notice as per the directions of this Court and thereafter, the impugned order was passed as submitting residence certificates of both Gorantla and Parigi Mandals is highly irregular as per the Rules stipulated for filling up of the post. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. The eighth respondent filed counter affidavit stating as follows: During enquiry conducted by the sixth respondent on 02.02.2011, the petitioner and this respondent appeared before the sixth respondent, who verified certificates of this respondent and satisfied that he has all requisite qualifications. This respondent produced applications submitted by the petitioner obtained by him under the RTI Act for perusal of the sixth respondent, but in both the applications, the writ petitioner did not mention that he had requisite qualification of having worked as ‘Prerak’ previously. Further, the petitioner applied for the same post in two Mandals and played fraud on authorities. This respondent approached the fourth respondent for his grievance on 12.07.2010 i.e. immediately after issuance of G.O. Rt. No.378, dated 08.07.2010, and the fourth respondent forwarded his representation to the fifth respondent, and after conducting thorough verification submitted a report to the fourth respondent and basing on the report, he was appointed as Mandal Coordinator. This respondent has not forged signatures of Mandal Literacy Organizer. He had worked as Nodal Prerak for three years in Parigi Mandal. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in terms of G.O. Rt. No.378, Education (PE-PROG.I) Department, dated 08.07.2010, preference will be given to a person who was working as ‘Prerak/Nodal Prerak/Assistant Prerak/Nodal Assistant Prerak’ in Continuing Education Programme, but not a requisite qualification for appointment to that post; that, the eighth respondent produced a forged certificate and that he had not given the application in time and as on the date of selection, he was over-aged, and therefore the appointment of the eighth respondent is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent contended that as per G.O. Rt. No.203, Edn. (PE.Prog.I) Department, dated 13.04.2010, it is essential that a candidate must have worked as a ‘Prerak/Nodal Prerak/Assistant Prerak/Nodal Assistant Prerak’ in Continuing Education Programme and the petitioner has not produced any certificate to show that he worked as such, and therefore, he does not possess the minimum requisite qualification for appointment as Mandal Coordinator, and therefore he is not eligible to be appointed as such; that, further the petitioner applied for the said post from two different Mandals viz. Gorantla and Parigi, producing relevant certificates from the two mandals, and therefore, the impugned order needs no interference. 7. The learned counsel for the eighth respondent contended that considering the documents filed by the eighth respondent to show about his qualifications and his fulfillment of requisite qualifications in terms of G.O. Rt. No.203, Edn. (PE.Prog.I) Department, dated 13.04.2010, he was appointed, and therefore, the same needs no interference by this Court. 8. A Notification calling for applications for filling up of Mandal Coordinators for various Mandals in Anantapur District was issued on 24.07.2010 by the fourth respondent. The petitioner, the eighth respondent and some others applied to the post in pursuance of the said Notification. As the petitioner was not having requisite qualification as required under G.O. Rt. No.203, Edn. (PE.Prog.I) Department, dated 13.04.2010, he was not selected. For selection as a Mandal Coordinator, the essentials are enumerated in the said G.O., which read as under : “Essential: - A graduate in any discipline from a recognized University and should have computer knowledge; - A resident of the mandal; - Have own mode of conveyance (Two wheeler); - Not exceeding 35 years of age as on 01.04.2010; - A member of the Self-help Group in the case of selection of women coordinator; or - Worked as Prerak/Nodal Prerak/Asst. Prerak/Nodal Asst. Prerak in continuing Education Programme” According to the learned counsel for the sixth respondent, in proof of working in Continuing Education Programme, the petitioner has not produced any document and therefore his case was not considered for appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, placed strong reliance on G.O. Rt. No.378, Education (PE-PROG.I) Department, dated 08.07.2010 stating that ‘preference’ will be given to those persons who worked in Continuing Education Programme, but it is not an essential or requisite criterion for appointment as a Mandal Coordinator. But, as seen from G.O. Rt. No.378, it is only a passing observation with reference to the earlier G.O.Rt.No.203, dated 13.04.2010. The aforesaid Government Order shows that after considering the Government Orders referred and considering recommendations of the Director of Adult Education, the Government relaxed age limit from 35 years to 40 years in respect of Nodal Preraks, Nodal Assistant Preraks, Preraks and Assistant Preraks, who worked earlier under Continuing Education Programme for selection of Mandal Coordinators/Village Coordinators under the Saakshar Bharat Programme. As seen from this Government Order, it is only issued for the purpose of relaxation of the age of Mandal Coordinator, but not that preference would be given to those persons who worked in the Continuing Education Programme. Therefore, one of the essentials of eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Mandal Coordinator is that a person must have worked in Continuing Education Programme. As, admittedly, the petitioner has not worked in the Education Programme, his case has been rightly rejected by the sixth respondent. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is that the eighth respondent, who is an ineligible person, was appointed by virtue of the impugned proceedings though he produced forged certificates and crossed prescribed maximum age as on the date of Notification. He further contended that within the time prescribed in the Notification, the eighth respondent has not applied and that by the time of giving Notification, the eighth respondent had already crossed age of 35 years and therefore he is not eligible for appointment. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the eighth respondent contended that by virtue of G.O. Rt. No.378, Education (PE-PROG.I) Department, dated 08.07.2010, maximum age limit has been relaxed from 35 years to 40 years in respect of posts for which the eighth respondent was appointed and therefore the appointment of the eighth respondent is completely in accordance with the criterion prescribed under G.O. Rt. No.203, Edn. (PE.Prog.I) Department, dated 13.04.2010. 10. If the appointment of the eighth respondent is not in accordance with G.O. Rt. No.203, Edn. (PE.Prog.I) Department, dated 13.04.2010, then the petitioner has to make a representation to the appointing authority pointing out the irregularities, if any. Therefore, that aspect of the case whether he is duly qualified for the post he applied, cannot be decided at this point of time, and it is entirely within the ambit and purview of the sixth respondent to decide the same. 11. The Writ Petition, accordingly, is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the sixth respondent to challenge the appointment of the eighth respondent as Mandal Coordinator. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 24.06.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 5675 of 2011 24.06.2011