IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6601 of 2009 Between: Smt. Pilaka Savitri, D/o. Kurmaiah, O/o. The Asst. Director of Sericulture, Srikakulam, (Under order of termination) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary, Sericulture Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director, Sericulture Deprtment, Visakhapatnam, Vizag District. 3 The Joint Director, Agriculture & Animal Husbandry Department, Srikakulam. 4 The Joint Director, Veterinary Department, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 5 The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Srikakulam. 6 The Commissioner, Sericulture Department, Hyderabad. 7 Mugu Padmavathi, D/o. Late Appala Swamy, R/o. H.No. 79, HUDCO Colony, Narasannapet, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal dt. 9-1-2009 in O.A.No. 2582/2006 as arbitrary, illegal, erroneous and consequently declare the proceedings Rc.No. 177/2006-B2 dt. 28-2- 2009 issued by the 2nd respondent terminating the services of the petitioner as well as proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in appointing the party respondent, as arbitrary illegal and violating the principles of natural justice and set aside the same with a direction to the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into service and continue the petitioner as Technical Asst., and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.1.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No. 2582 of 2006, by virtue of which, the Tribunal allowed the O.A and directed the respondents to complete the process of selection and issue orders of appointment to all the candidates, who were sponsored by the Employment Officer through his letter dated 28.1.2006 by implementing the merit list already prepared based on the merit of the individuals as per the marks obtained in the 8th class examination. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the cancellation of the selection process vide proceedings dated 15.4.2006 for the backlog post of Technical Assistant in Sericulture Department conducted on 9.3.2006 or postponing the selection of the candidate for the said post and non- selection of the applicant, as Technical Assistant is arbitrary and illegal. It is her case that she passed B.A, and ITI, Electronics and holds a certificate in computer course. She obtained 514 marks out of 600 in 8th standard and belong to SC community apart from being physically handicapped having polio to her left foot and with a disability of 40% as per the Medical Certificate issued by the Kind George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The certificate also shows that her physical disability would not come in her way for attending all kinds of field work, including walking to interior, rural and hill areas. The applicant claims that she is having capacity to walk for miles without the assistance of any instrument and that she can also ride bicycle and two-wheeler freely without any difficulty like any other normal human being. The Regional Joint Director of Sericulture, Visakhapatnam issued notification to the District Employment Officer, Srikakulam clearly with a request to sponsor eligible candidates to fill the post of Technical Assistant under SC Backlog vacancy. Soon after receipt of the list consisting of 20 candidates the second respondent herein has sent call letters to all candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange, Srikakulam to appear before Selection Committee for interview on 9.3.2006. The applicant is one among them who has received call letter vide Lr. Rc.No. 32/2006-B2, dated 17.2.2006 from the Regional Joint Director of Sericulture, Visakhapatnam. The selection was on the basis of merit of 8th standard examination. The posts were intended for SC (Woman) backlog vacancies. Out of the 17 candidates, who attended the interview, the applicant who got 514 out of 600 marks stood first in merit among all the candidates, who appeared for the selection. However, after the process of selection, no selection list was put up on the notice board either on that date or on the next day subsequently. On enquiry, the applicant came to know that the list was with the 2nd respondent and therefore, she approached the 2nd respondent, who informed her that she was not selected as she is a physically handicapped person. Hence, she approached the Tribunal. The Regional Joint Director of Sericulture filed a counter affidavit and stated that as per the Medical Certificate submitted by the applicant to the Selection Committee, the disability is 60% but not 40% and as per Rule 4 (a) of A.P. State Sericulture Subordinate Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No. 4, Housing (Seri.) Department, dated 13.11.1990, there is no provision for recruitment of Physically Handicapped candidate in the Department of Sericulture for the post of Technical Assistant or any other cadres, as the work involved with the posts is technical in nature. It is further stated that the rule of reservation for the physically handicapped persons is not applicable for the technical posts in the department. The Tribunal held that the decision of the respondent authorities in cancelling the selection process, which has been initiated, on the untenable ground that one of the applicants viz., the applicant is physically handicapped is held to be bad under law. It also held that the disability can also be overcomed by the will and determination of the individual either with the use of aid or otherwise. At any rate, since the rules do not bar the appointment of a candidate, who is having the disability as on the date of the notification, the respondent –authorities are not entitled to deny selection to the applicant and accordingly allowed the O.A and directed the respondents to complete the process of selection and issue orders of appointment to all the candidates, who were sponsored by the Employment Officer, through his letter dated 28.1.2006 by implementing the merit list already prepared based on the merit of the individuals, as per the marks obtained in the 8th class examination. Petitioner filed WPMP No. 7902 of 2009 seeking leave to file Writ Petition challenging the order dated 9.1.2009 passed in O.A.No. 2582 of 2006 and this Court granted leave on 26.3.2009 by ordering the WPMP. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has not committed any error inasmuch as there is no justification in postponing the selection process and there is no relevant material. He also contended that in the special rules there is no prohibition so as to disqualify the physically handicapped persons for appearing for selection and the Tribunal has taken into account the Act 1 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation ) Act, 1995, which provides for equal opportunity to the physically handicapped persons to participate in the selection process and the Tribunal has rightly considered this aspect in proper perspective. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is for the employer to select the candidates and though the selection process is not completed but nonetheless the cancellation of selection and postponement of selection was not challenged. He also contended that it is for the appointing authority to select the candidates. Merely a person who is selected in the select list does not itself confer any right much less a legal right, so as to claim the appointment order. He further contended that the Tribunal directed to appoint the candidates sponsored by the Employment Officer, which was made subsequent to the cancellation of the earlier selection and as requested by the employer the Employment Officer issued second notification and by virtue of the second notification the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis. The learned Government Pleader also contended that there is no prohibition in the Special Rules so as to disqualify the physically handicapped persons from consideration. Now the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal has committed any jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. As far as the direction given by the Tribunal to the authorities to complete the process of selection and issue orders of appointment to all the candidates, who were sponsored by the Employment Officer through his letter dated 28.1.2006 by implementing the merit list already prepared based on the merit of the individuals as per the marks obtained in the 8th Class Examination, is concerned , in our considered opinion, it is beyond the purview of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the authorities to issue orders of appointment to all the candidates. It is the prerogative of the employer. A person who is put in the select list does not confer any right much less a vested right so as to claim appointment. It is for the employer to judge the suitability having regard to the nature of duties and also the relevant criterion. However, to that extent, the finding of the Tribunal directing the authorities to issue orders of appointment to all the candidates, is hereby quashed. However, the Tribunal rightly held that the cancellation of the earlier notification or the postponement of earlier notification is without any justifiable reasons. Therefore, we upheld that portion of the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. However, it is for the authority concerned to consider the claim of the rival candidates and consider the suitability of the candidates’ vis-à-vis the marks obtained in the 8th Class Examination and after verifying the marks obtained, pass appropriate orders. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 23.4.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Principal Secretary, Sericulture Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director, Sericulture Deprtment, Visakhapatnam, Vizag District. 3 The Joint Director, Agriculture & Animal Husbandry Department, Srikakulam. 4 The Joint Director, Veterinary Department, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 5 The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Srikakulam. 6 The Commissioner, Sericulture Department, Hyderabad. 7 Mugu Padmavathi, D/o. Late Appala Swamy, R/o. H.No. 79, HUDCO Colony, Narasannapet, Srikakulam District. 8. 2CC to G.P. for Services I, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad OUT 9. 2 CD copies