IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 16120 of 2006 Between: Sri Tadi Narasimha Murthy S/o.Paidiyya ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner & Director of Collegiate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 S.K.B.R.College, Amalapuram, East Godavari District rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent. 3 Sri J.V.G.R.Bhanu, Secretary& Correspondent, S.K.B.R. College, 4 Thota Murali Krishna S/o.Venkata Rao 5 Ambati Brahmananda Rao S/o.Veera Swamy East Godavari District. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not selecting and appointing the petitioner as Attender in aided vacancy of 2nd respondent college and in selecting and appointing the 4th and 5th respondents as illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary and vitiated by malafides and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to appoint the petitioner as Attender in aided vacancy of 2nd respondent college with retrospective effect, and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not selecting and appointing the petitioner as Attender in the aided vacancy of the 2nd respondent College and in selecting and appointing the 4th and 5th respondents as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Attender in the aided vacancy in the 2nd respondent College. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Education, Mr.I.Nagesh, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr.Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the 2nd respondent College as Attender on temporary basis on 4.8.1997. Along with him one Sri M.Kameswara Rao and respondents 4 and 5 herein were also working in the 2nd respondent college. While he joined in service as attender on 4.8.1997, respondents 4 and 5 joined on 26.6.1998 and 1.8.2001 respectively. While so, the 2nd respondent college gave an advertisement for recruitment of attenders on 30.12.2005, reserving two posts for SCs with desired qualification of VIII class pass. While he was placed in the waiting list at serial No.2, the said M.Kameswara Rao and the 4th respondent herein were selected basing on the marks obtained by them in the VIII class. However, as the said Kameswara Rao crossed the maximum age prescribed, the 1st respondent – Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education refused to approve his candidature and in his place, the 5th respondent is given the appointment. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is senior to respondents 4 and 5 and is also more qualified to them and that he is elder to both of them. But, the respondents ignoring his seniority and his qualifications, gave appointments to respondents 4 and 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the appointments were made, the petitioner came to know that the 5th respondent submitted fake marks memo to get through the selection in collusion with the 3rd respondent-Secretary and Correspondent of the 2nd respondent College. Therefore, he filed W.P.M.P. Nos. 3237 and 3238 of 2008 – the first one to implead the Head Master, Zilla Parishad Boys High School and the second to receive the notarized affidavit dated 01.10.2007 of Sri. Edam Geaorge Michel, wherein he has stated that he has not issued the marks memo submitted by the 5th respondent and the signature is not of his, as additional material papers. After issuing notice to the said persons, the said petitions were ordered. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P. No. 35768 of 2008 seeking permission to file additional material papers, which include the copy of central marks roll of VIII class ‘D’ Section for the year 1984-85 attested by the 6th respondent. It is stated that the 5th respondent submitted fake marks memo to substantiate that he secured 270 marks out of 600 marks in 8th class during the year 1984-85 in ZP Boys High School, Amalapuram but the Head Master of the school through notarized affidavit dated 1.10.2007 deposed that he had not issued any such certificate and the signature appearing on the marks memo produced by the 5th respondent is not of him. The additional material papers produced by the petitioner contain the covering letter dated 9.12.2008 addressed by the petitioner counsel to the 6th respondent, para wise remarks dated 9.12.2008 signed by the 6th respondent, marks memo dated 8.12.2008 issued by the 6th respondent, copy of the central marks roll of 8th class ‘D’ section for the year 1984-85 attested by the 6th respondent. The main contention of the petitioner is that a comparison of the marks memo produced by the 5th respondent and the 6th respondent clearly reveal that the 5th respondent submitted a fake marks memo. In spite of bringing these facts to the notice of the management of the 2nd respondent College, no action has been taken to conduct any enquiry. Though respondent 1 and 2 and 3 in their counters denied that the petitioner did not bring the said facts to their notice, the fact remains, the 5th respondent was selected on the basis of the marks produced by him, which did not tally with the marks memo produced by the 6th respondent. In view of the above, all the learned counsel submitted that the matter requires an enquiry into the allegations levelled by the petitioner, and agreed for disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: The Regional Joint Director, Rajahmundry, is directed to conduct an enquiry into the allegations levelled by the petitioner after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the 5th respondent and the 2nd respondent College and submit a report to the 1st respondent – Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad basing on which the 1st respondent shall take necessary action. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that after issuing notice by the Regional Joint Director, Rajahmundry, the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent are at liberty to place the material in support of their case before the Regional Joint Director, Rajahmundry, which shall be taken into consideration by him during the course of enquiry. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.19.12.2008 msv Note: Issue CC tomorrow B/O