IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL Nos. 713 and 718 of 2008 W.A.No.713 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/06/2008 in WP NO : 13625 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: N.Venkat Rao S/o.Late N.Mutyalu, R/o.Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam, through Manager (Oper) Personal Dept., Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Immani Suryanarayana S/o.I.Narayana, R/o.Visakhapatnam. 2 Visakhapatnam Port Trust Visakhapatnam rep. by its Chairman. 3 D.K. Sarma, Trustee Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam Dharma Shakti Bhavan, 26-15-204, Visakhapatnam. 4 Viyyapu Velangini Das Fire Services Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Respondents 3 and 4 are not necessary parties) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.K.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.A.No.718 of 2008 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/06/2008 in WP NO : 13625 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Viyyapu Velangini Das, Leading Fireman, Fire Service Section, Visakhapatnam Port Turst, Visakhapatnam-530 035. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, rep. byits Chairman. 2 D.K. Sarma, Trustee, Visakhapatnam, Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, Dharma Shakti Bhavan, 26.15.204, Visakhapatnam. 3 Nagubille Venkat Rao through Manager ( Oper), Personnel Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. 4 Immani Suryanarayana, S/o. I. Narayana, R/o. Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant :MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL Nos. 713 and 718 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy) These two writ appeals have been filed by respondents 3 and 4 in writ petition No.13625 of 2006 aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 25.06.2008. For the sake of convenience, we refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition. The 1st respondent-Visakhapatnam Port Trust has issued employment notice dated 24th April 2006 inviting applications to fill up two vacant posts of Fire and Assistant Safety Officers. Out of the said two posts, one post was reserved for Ex- Servicemen and the other one is an open category post. In the notification, eligibility criteria was notified with regard to the qualifications and other conditions. The following are the prescribed qualifications which are notified : 1. Must be Graduate of recognized University; 2. Must have had training in a recognized fire training school; 3. Experience of not less than 3 years in a supervisory capacity in a regular fire service ; and 4. Should possess a driving licence for light and heavy vehicles. In addition to the above said qualifications, there was also a condition prescribing maximum age limit as 35 years. In response to the above said notification, the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 and another person have submitted their applications. At the first instance, a Screening Committee has screened the applications and the said Screening Committee did not approve the candidature of respondents 3 and 4. However, their cases were subsequently considered by the Selection Committee and they were selected. In the writ petition, the selection of respondents 3 and 4 was mainly questioned on the ground that respondent No.3 is over-aged and inspite of the fact that the Screening Committee did not approve his candidature, the Selection Committee has considered his case and appointed him. So far as respondent No.4 is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 was not possessing the required training certificate from a recognized institute as per the notified conditions, due to which, his candidature was also not approved by the Screening Committee, but inspite of the said fact, the Selection Committee has considered his candidature and appointed him. The learned single Judge, after considering the matter at length, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the selection of respondents 3 and 4 and further directed the Selection Committee to once again consider the claims of various applicants strictly in accordance with the rules, and after thorough scrutiny of their eligibility criteria. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and respondents. In these appeals, it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent No.3 that as he was an in-service candidate and there is a Board resolution to exempt age restriction for the in-service candidates, the Selection Committee has considered his candidature and he was duly selected. Even with regard to respondent No.4, it is argued by learned counsel that though he possess the requisite qualifications, his appointment was set aside. As such, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents 3 and 4 that as they are eligible and qualified to be appointed, there is no illegality in their selection. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents in these writ appeals that the Scrutiny Committee did not approve the candidature of respondents 3 and 4 for consideration, but inspite of the same, their claims were considered by the Selection Committee illegally and they were appointed. It is submitted that though there was no relaxation of age in favour of respondent No.3, inspite of the same, his name was considered. Even with regard to respondent No.4, it is submitted that he was not possessing the requisite qualification from a recognized fire training school, and inspite of it, his candidature was considered and he too was selected. It is not in dispute that the Screening Committee has screened the applications before they were placed before the Selection Committee for considering and making appointments. Though it is the case of respondent No.3 that there is a Board resolution exempting the in-service candidates from age restriction, but it appears that the said aspect was not considered while making selections. Even with regard to respondent No.4, it is doubtful whether the qualification possessed by him is the requisite qualification as to the notified eligibility criteria notified by the Port Trust. Asmuch as the learned single Judge has directed the Selection Committee to consider the matter afresh in accordance with the Rules and after thorough scrutiny of the eligibility of the candidates, it is not necessary for us to examine whether respondents 3 and 4 have fulfilled the eligibility criteria or not. It is suffice to say that the Screening Committee did not approve the candidature of respondents 3 and 4, but however, their claims were considered by the Selection Committee. In view of the directions granted by the learned single Judge for examining the matter afresh, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that as they were appointed pursuant to the earlier selections and are continuing in service since their appointment, as such, they may be allowed to continue till further selections are made pursuant to the directions given by the learned single Judge. Asmuch as the selections are set aside, we are also not inclined to direct the Visakhapatnam Port Trust to continue respondents 3 and 4 in service, but however, we make it clear that if the continuance of respondents 3 and 4 is required, it is open for the Port Trust to continue them as Fire and Assistant Safety Officers till fresh selection process is completed and appointments are made. It is also open to the Management of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust either to continue respondents 3 and 4, or to take any other suitable person as per their minimum requirement. It is needless to observe that the Selection Committee shall process the applications and make appointments by strictly adhering to the rules of appointment and eligibility criteria as notified in the employment notice. Subject to the above directions, both the writ appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 17th July 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J grr/ajr To 1. The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.