*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 26246 of 2006 % 30-07-2008 Between: # C. Sudhakar and others. ... PETITIONERS AND $ The Government of India, rep by its Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology and others. ...RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS: MR.M.SURENDER RAO ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: MR.RAVINDRA YANAMANDRA SC FOR B.S.N.L. < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26246 of 2006 Between: 1 C. Sudhakar, S/o. C. Hanumanthu, BSNL, Anantapur. 2 V. Chandulal, S/o. S.P. Naik, O/o. GMT, BSNL, Anantapur. 3 J. Simon Kumar, S/o. J. George, O/o. Central Telegraph Office, Kadapa. 4 Y. Srinivasulu, S/o. Y. Obulesu, O/o. SDE, MDF (Main) Vemana Telephone Exchange, Anantapur. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of India, rep by its Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi. 3 The Joint Deputy Director General (DE), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 4 The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, A.P. Circle, Abids, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue writ order or direction more particular one in the nature of Writ of "Mandamus" declaring the Clause iv of Paragraph 3 of the letter No. 12-15/2002-DE dated 10-3-2003 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal arbitrary, discriminatory of contrary to article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and contrary to instructions issued in per & A.R., O.M.No. 36011/6/79-Est. (SCT) dated 19-4-1979 in so far as it denies the beneﬁts of relaxation standard to the petitioners who appeared in departmental competitive Examination for Junior Telecom Oﬃcers (15% quota) held in the year 1999 by holding that the petitioners are entitled for grant of the beneﬁt of relaxed standards in teims of instructions issued instructions issued in per & A.R., O.M.No. 36011/6/79-Est. (SCT) dated 19-4-1979 with all consequential beneﬁts such as inclusion in the merit list, promotion to the post of Junior Telecom oﬃcer, seniority, pay and allowances etc., and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents : MR.RAVINDRA YANAMANDRA SC FOR B.S.N.L. The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioners challenge clauses (iii) and (iv) of paragraph 3 of the policy enunciated by Bharat Sanchart Nigam Limited (B.S.N.L), the second respondent herein, in its proceedings, dated 10.03.2003. The factual background, that gave rise to the ﬁling of this writ petition, is as under: The petitioners were employed as Senior Technical Assistants in the erstwhile Department of Telecommunications, Government of India. The next superior post is Junior Telecom Oﬃcer. The appointment to that post is from three channels, namely 50% through direct recruitment, 35% by promotion after conducting departmental scrutiny test and 15% on competitive basis restricting the participation to departmental candidates. A notiﬁcation for holding the competitive examination for 15% quota, was published on 09.12.1998 and the examinations were held on 15th and 16th May, 1999. The results were declared on 25.11.1999. The petitioners were not selected in that batch. A similar notiﬁcation was issued on 10.03.2000 in the Andhra Pradesh Circle. Examinations were held on 16th and 17th September, 2000. However, the examinations were cancelled on the allegation that the question papers were leaked. Thereafter, the examinations were conducted on 30.12.2000 and the results were declared on 24.11.2000. The petitioners chose to appear from Hyderabad Centre, but on a boycott call given by the Trade Unions, they did not appear in the examination. The B.S.N.L. came into existence with eﬀect from 01.10.2000. On ﬁnding that the substantial number of posts against 15% competitive examination quota remained unﬁlled, it was decided to relax the standards. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings, dated 10.03.2003, were issued. The salient features thereof are that the requirement that a candidate must pass in each subject was relaxed and pass in the test, as a whole, was treated as suﬃcient. Before relaxation, the minimum marks for O.C. candidates were ‘40’ and for S.C. candidates, it was ‘33’. They were relaxed to ‘30’ and ‘20’ respectively. A clause, however, was added to the eﬀect that in case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, the beneﬁt of 20% would be available only in respect of the candidates, whose results were declared before 27.07.1997 and after 03.10.2000. Another important condition is that the relaxation referred to above, would be applied to one of the two examinations held in the years 1999 and 2000, whichever is later. The petitioners contend that restricting the relaxation to one of the examinations held in the years 1999 and 2000, whichever is later, would adversely aﬀect them, inasmuch as they were prevented from appearing in the examination conducted in the year 2000. Other contentions also advanced complaining discrimination. The respondents ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit, opposing the claim of the petitioners. It is stated that the relaxation, or for that matter, the extension of beneﬁt thereof cannot be claimed as of right. It is stated that the examination for the year 2000 was held not only in Andhra Pradesh Circle, but also in various Circles in the country. The allegation of the petitioners that all the candidates from the Andhra Pradesh Circle are discriminated in the context of the examination held in the year 2000, is not correct, inasmuch as hundreds of candidates were either selected initially or were extended the beneﬁt under the scheme on the basis of their performance in the examination held in the year 2000. Sri M.Surender Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the policy contained in the impugned proceedings is discriminatory and arbitrary in several respects. He contends that the petitioners are either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates and denying the beneﬁt to them for the performance in the examination held in the year 1999, is totally unjustiﬁed. He contends that the non-appearance of the petitioners in the examination held in the year 2000, was on account of the reasons beyond their control. Sri Y.Ravindra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that a uniform policy was evolved for application towards the country and the mere fact that the petitioners were disabled from appearing in the examination of the year 2000, cannot be treated as a factor to find fault with the policy. The petitioners claim the beneﬁt under the proceedings, through which relaxation was granted in favour of the candidates, who did not make it, up to the selection in the years 1999 and 2000. Though there was a change in the constitution of the organization, it has not much of relevance in the present context. The post of the Junior Telecom Oﬃcer occupies an important position in the organization. The same is evident from the fact that only Graduate Engineers are eligible to apply, under the direct recruitment quota. Assessment of almost equivalent standard is to be undertaken vis-à-vis 15% competitive quota, for which the participation is restricted to departmental candidates. According to the relevant rules, an O.C. candidate must secure minimum of 40 marks and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates must secure 33. This is in addition to the requirement that the candidates must secure pass marks in each subject. Realizing that adequate number of candidates were not qualiﬁed under this category, the respondents relaxed the conditions. Here itself, a caveat must be added to the eﬀect that no individual can claim relaxation, as a matter of right, nor can this Court compel an employer to relax its rules. The only area of interference would be the uniform and objective application of the policy so evolved. The petitioners feel aggrieved with Clauses (iii) and (iv) of paragraph 3 of the policy, which read as under: “(iii) The required minimum aggregate marks in all four subjects will be 30% for O.C. Candidates and 20% for SC/ST candidates. However, in respect of result which have been ﬁnalized between 27th July, 1997 and 3rd October, 2000 there would be no separate standards for SC/ST candidates and 30% will be uniformly applied to all candidates. (iv) The above relaxation would be applied to either of the two examinations i.e., the examination held in the year 1999 or in the year 2000 whichever was later. In short, the relaxation will not be application to both the examinations where the examination has been held in both the years but will be applicable to the last examination held in a circle under 15% quota and shall not be a precedent for any future examination.” A perusal of the same discloses that the respondents have taken a conscious decision to extend the beneﬁt of relaxation, subject to certain conditions. The petitioners are not able to reap the beneﬁt of relaxation, on account of the fact that they did not appear in the examination conducted in the year 2000. Except that, there is no other factor to complain. It is not as if the examination was conducted in the year 2000 in the Andhra Pradesh Circle alone. It was conducted in many Circles all over the country. Even in the Andhra Pradesh Circle, the boycott was not in all the Centres. It was only at Hyderabad Centre that the candidates were said to have been prevented by the trade unions. That is a matter, which is totally outside the control of the petitioners or for that matter, the respondents. Such factors, howsoever genuine they may be, cannot constitute the basis to ﬁnd fault with the policy, which otherwise conforms to the requirement of law. The learned counsel for the petitioners claims the relief on the strength of a memo, dated 19.04.1979, which provides for the beneﬁt of relaxation exclusively to the candidates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Even this is a measure, which empowers the concerned employers, and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. At any rate, the said order stood complied with, on account of the special measures provided for in the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:30.07.2008 Note: LR copy to be marked. (B/o) kdl To 1 The Government of India, rep by its Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi. 3 The Joint Deputy Director General (DE), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 4 The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, A.P. Circle, Abids, Hyderabad. 5 Two CD copies