*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition No.5805 of 2010 % 12-09-2011 # Ambati Brahmananda Rao ..petitioner And $ The Commissioner & Director of Collegiate Education, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad & others ..Respondents !Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A. Pulla Reddy ^Counsel for respondents . : GP for Higher Education Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, for R-5 < Gist: > Head Note: Citations: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.5805 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as an Attender in the year 1998 in the 4th respondent-institution against an unaided vacancy. The 5th respondent was also appointed as attender against an unaided vacancy in the same institution in the year 1997. A vacancy in the post of attender, admitted to grant-in-aid, arose in the year 2005. After obtaining permission from the concerned authorities, the institution notified the same, inviting applications. The petitioner, 5th respondent, and others applied. Pass in VIII Class was stipulated as the qualification. Through proceedings dated 26-05-2006, the Correspondent of the institution appointed the petitioner as an attender and the same was approved by the competent authority. The 5th respondent raised an objection for the selection and appointment of the petitioner as attender. According to him, the marks memo submitted by the petitioner is not a genuine one. He filed W.P.No.16120 of 2006, challenging the appointment of the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of on 19-12-2008, directing the Commissioner & Director of Collegiate Education, the 1st respondent herein to cause enquiry into the matter. The 1st respondent directed the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, the 2nd respondent herein to submit a report, after verifying the relevant facts. The 2nd respondent submitted a report on 28-03-2009, observing that the memorandum of marks submitted by the petitioner is genuine, and a certificate issued by the Head Mistress of the school, in the year 2008, stating that the marks memo is not genuine; is biased. The 1st respondent was not satisfied with the report submitted by the 2nd respondent, on 28-03-2008. He issued a memo, directing the 2nd respondent to submit a revised report. Re-verification was conducted by the 2nd respondent, and a report was submitted on 25-07-2009. This time also the 2nd respondent took the view that the appointment of the petitioner is not vitiated in any manner, and being under pressure from various corners, the authorities of the school were changing their stand, from time to time. The 1st respondent once again was not satisfied with the report and called for a third report. It was on 22-10-2009, that the 2nd respondent submitted another report, taking the view that the memorandum of marks submitted by the petitioner at the time of selection was not genuine. Taking the same into account, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 08-02-2010, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why action be not taken for removal from service, and why criminal case be not instituted against him. The petitioner challenges the said notice. He contends that a roving enquiry was caused by the 1st respondent, till a report, contrary to the interests of the petitioner, was submitted; and the whole exercise was vitiated. The case of the petitioner is contested mainly by the 5th respondent. In his counter-affidavit, he submits that the selection was based upon the marks in VIII class, and that it has ultimately emerged that the memorandum of marks submitted by the petitioner is not genuine. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and learned counsel for the 5th respondent. The petitioner was serving the 4th respondent-institution from the year 1998 onwards, against an unaided vacancy. So is the case with the 5th respondent. Both of them submitted applications in response to a notification issued in the year 2005. VIII Class was mentioned as the minimum educational qualification. By that time, both of them have studied classes, over and above VIII. No written test was conducted for that post, and ultimately it is the satisfaction of the Selection Committee, as to the fitness and suitability of the candidates. The petitioner was selected and naturally, the 5th respondent felt aggrieved. At one stage, the 5th respondent appears to have been informed that the selection of the petitioner was on account of the marks obtained by him in VIII Class. With that information he approached this Court, on the one hand, and the 1st respondent, on the other hand. This Court directed the 1st respondent to cause enquiry into the matter and pass appropriate orders. A matter of this nature ought not to have taken so much of time, and so many proceedings from the 1st respondent. He called for a report from the 2nd respondent, who, in turn, inspected the institution and submitted a report. Instead of giving a quietus to the matter at that stage, the 1st respondent called for reports, on as many as three occasions. The record discloses that the petitioner and the 5th respondent were trying to overreach each other and the amount of pressure brought upon the administration of the school is evident from the stand taken by it, from time to time. Broadly, the situation can be compared to the one, where a disciplinary authority had ordered departmental enquiry and the enquiry officer, in turn had submitted report. The disciplinary authority does have the power to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. However, he has to state the reasons on account of which, he takes a different view. Law denounces the practice of calling of repeated reports from the enquiry officer, till the one, to the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority is submitted. Such a practice would be subversive of fairness and impartiality. In the instant case, the 1st respondent did not furnish any reasons, when he refused to accept the report submitted by the enquiry officer, at the initial stage. Straightaway he called for a second report. When that was also on the same lines, he insisted on a further enquiry. The whole exercise is untenable in law. This is not a case, where the study of the petitioner in the school concerned, is disputed. The certificates disclose that he studied up to 10th class in that very school. There was no detention system at the relevant point of time, and it hardly made any difference, whether one passed or failed in VIII class, for being promoted to IX class and from there, to the X class. Further, it is not a selection post, where the marks obtained by a candidate would become the deciding factor. The selection for the post of attender would depend much upon the satisfaction of the management of the school, particularly, when the petitioner and 5th respondent were serving them for a period of 7 years, before the selection. This Court is of the view that the impugned notice cannot be sustained in law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.12-09-2011. KO