IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 34475 of 1998 Between: S.Venkateswar Rao S/o. S.Laxmaiah R/o. Marsumalli Village Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Smt. S.Dhanlaxmi, W/o. J.Narsimha Rao R/o Marsumalli, Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District. 2 Chief Post Master General Chief Post Master General A.P. Postal Circle at Abids, Hyderabad. 3 Director of Postal Services Director of Postal Services O/o. PMG at Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vijayawada Division at Vijayawada, Krishna District. 5 The Registrar The Registrar Central Administration Tribunal, A.P., 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 appropriate writ or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the CAT of Hyderabad Bench in OA.No. 1389/96 dt. 3/9/1998 and quash the order made therein dt.3/9/1998 while holding the selection of the petitioner herein in the post of EDBPM, Marusumalli (v), Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District by the 4th respondent under Lr.No.BE/250/96 dt.22/8/1996 is just and legal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.CH.RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: SRI.S.LAKSHMA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 34475 of 1998 ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri. Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order, dated 3.9.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.1389 of 1996. Facts stated are: The 1st respondent herein is the applicant in the O.A. Aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner herein, she ﬁled the above O.A. contending that she was more meritorious candidate and that the selection of the writ petitioner, who is a SC candidate and who is not meritorious, without earmarking the reservation in the notiﬁcation, is irregular and that by the date of the said selection, she was working as EDBPM on provisional basis. The Tribunal while relying upon the decision of the Tribunal of the Calcutta Bench in Shibnath Dhare Vs. UOI[1], held that the selection of the writ petitioner in the absence of clear indication in the notiﬁcation as to the reservation, is irregular. Having observed so, the Tribunal issued a direction to select the meritorious candidate on the basis of the applications received in pursuance of the notiﬁcation, dated 25.9.1995 and appoint a regular candidate accordingly. It was made clear that if any of the candidates, who responded to that notiﬁcation, is aggrieved by that selection, they are at liberty to approach the judicial forum for appropriate relief and till the regular candidate is posted, the EDBPM working as on that day shall be continued as a provisional candidate. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the notiﬁcations dated 9.6.1995 & 25.9.1995, speciﬁed that the candidates, who belong to SC/ST, should enclose necessary certiﬁcates obtained from the prescribed authority and therefore, it can be inferred that the vacancy notiﬁed is not meant for other candidates. It is further contended that the petitioner was selected on merit in a general category ignoring the rule of reservation and therefore, the direction of the Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on an unreported decisions of a Full Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1551 of 1997, dated 12.11.1998, wherein it has held thus: “The condition that preference will be given to ST/SC/OBC would mean that the candidates belonging to ST/SC/OBC even if placed below the names of OCs (i.e., other candidates, or candidates belonging to general category) in the merit list, would be entitled to appointment in preference to OCs, though all the candidates belonging to general category or ST/SC/OBC categories would be entitled to equal consideration for the purpose of selection. If the name of the candidate belonging to ST/SC/OBC ﬁnds place in the merit list, or no eligible ST/SC/OBC candidate is available for the post, then only OC candidate may be selected for appointment according to the rules.” On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents-2, 3 and 4 contended that the post notiﬁed is not earmarked for SC category and as the representation of ‘SC’ candidates in BPM posts was below the required percentage of 15%, the then Senior Superintendent of Post Oﬃces had selected the petitioner for that post. It is further submitted that as per the directions of the Tribunal in the present O.A, the 1st respondent-applicant, who secured more marks in SSC, was selected and that simply because the community certiﬁcate was called for, that does not mean that the post is reserved for SC/ST community and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, We have considered the rival submissions of both the Counsel. Admittedly, the notiﬁcation impugned in the O.A. does not indicate as to whether the vacancy is reserved for SC/ST or for general category. The notiﬁcation indicates that the applications are invited from the eligible candidates for the post of Branch Post Master. The notiﬁcation does not mention that the post is earmarked for SC/ST candidate. It is seen from the notiﬁcation that the applicants, who belong to SC/ST, should enclose necessary certificates. But, basing on the same, it cannot be inferred that the post is meant for reserved category. At the same time, the candidates belonging to SC/ST can also apply for the said post and they would be entitled to equal consideration on par with general candidates for the purpose of selection and if any SC/ST candidate ﬁnds place in the merit list above the OCs, they may be selected. In fact, the notiﬁcation does not make any classiﬁcation of the post and in such event, the candidate, who is meritorious would be appointed. Further, in the absence of any clause that the vancancy is reserved for SC/ST category, the authority has to select the meritorious candidate even if he/she belongs to SC/ST category, as rightly observed by the Tribunal. The orders in O.A.No.1551/1997 passed by the CAT, Hyderabad Bench, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner cannot be made applicable in the instant case, for the reason that in the notiﬁcation therein, it was notiﬁed that preference will be given to ST/SC/OBC candidates whereas in the instant case, there is no such clause in the notiﬁcation. Apart from that, it is not the case of the writ petitioner that he topped the list of meritorious candidates. Therefore, for the reason that the community certificate was called for, the writ petitioner cannot claim the appointment, as a matter of right, under the reservation, except as a meritorious candidate. In the foregoing circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ________________________ Justice G. Bhavani Prasad Date: 16.9.2008 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 34475 of 1998 (Order delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 16.09.2008 [1] 1997 AT C (36) 41