THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.33574 OF 2010 O R D E R Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4. The counsel for the petitioner had taken personal notice to the respondent no.5, who is the unoﬃcial respondent, and ﬁled proof of service. There is no representation on his behalf. 2. Aggrieved by the action of the oﬃcial respondents in appointing the unoﬃcial respondent no.5 as Mandal Coordinator of Nekkonda Mandal, Warangal District, pursuant to the interviews held on 17.06.2010, in violation of the prescribed procedure under G.O.Rt.No.203 dated 13.4.2010, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The case of the petitioner as stated in the writ aﬃdavit is that he is a resident of Chendrugonda village of Nekkonda Mandal, Warangal District and passed M.A., B.Ed. and also possess P.G. Diploma in Computer Applications and that he was appointed on 1.7.2000 as Prerak in Continuous Education Centre, Chendrugonda village and was honoured Best Prerak award during the year 2002 and he also possess own conveyance of Hero Honda motor cycle and aged 35 years, with driving licence. Pursuant to the implementation of Centrally Sponsored Saakshar Bharat Scheme in 18 Districts of Andhra Pradesh, including Warangal District, the 1st respondent – Government Andhra Pradesh, represented through Secretary Education (P.E.PORG.I) Department, issued G.O.Rt.No.203 dated 13.4.2010 laying guidelines for selection of Mandal Coordinator. Pursuant to the said Government Orders, the 3rd respondent – Mandal Parishad Development Oﬃcer/Convenor, Selection Sub-Committee, Nekkonda Mandal, Warangal District, issued the notiﬁcation inviting the application from the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Mandal Coordinator. The petitioner made the application and attended the interview on 17.6.2010. As the results were not published, he made application under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the 3rd respondent and vide letter dated 15.11.2010, he was issued with the merit list of candidates appeared for the interview on 17.6.2010 and as per the said merit list, he secured highest marks of 19 in the mandal. As the results were not punished considering the merit in the interview, he made complaint to the Mandal Parished President and the District Collector and he was informed that the selections were completed and the appointment orders were issued on the basis of merit. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 and it is stated inter alia that as the petitioner was already working as Village Co-ordinator of Chandrugonda village of Nekkonda Mandal since August, 2010, the committed decided to appoint Padala Rajkumar, who is the impleaded 5th respondent as Mandal Coordinator and accordingly he was appointed. 5. Though the 5th respondent was served with personal notice, there is no representation on his behalf. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the writ aﬃdavit further submitted that the petitioner fulﬁlls all the eligibility criteria under G.O.Rt.No.203 dated 13.4.2010 and that as per the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent dated 15.11.2010, the petitioner secured highest marks of 19 in the entire mandal and, therefore, the petitioner is fully eligible to be appointed as Mandal Coordinator and, his working as Village Co-ordinate, cannot disqualify him for being appointed as Mandal Coordinator. He submitted that the post of a Mandal Coordinator is higher than that of a Village Coordinator and it carries monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- and it is at mandal level, whereas, the salary of a Village Coordinator is only Rs.2,000/- and is at village level. Therefore, as the petitioner secured highest marks in the interview and fulﬁlls the eligibility criteria under G.O.Rt.No.203, and that he belongs to B.C.-A community, he shall be appointed as Mandal Coordinator in preference to the 5th respondent, and, therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary and, therefore, sough to set aside the same. 7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the petitioner made representations to the District Collector, but has not made him a party and the selection committee is also not impleaded. He stated that the selection has been made as per G.O.Rt.No.203 and therefore sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to note G.O.Rt.No.203 dated 13.4.2010, which stipulates the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of a Mandal Coordinator. The relevant portion is extracted as under: “Selection of Mandal Coordinator Essential Ø A graduate in any discipline from a recognized University and should have computer knowledge. Ø A resident of the mandal Ø Have own mode of conveyance (Two wheeler) Ø Not exceeding 35 years of age as on 01.04.2010 Ø A member of the Self-help Group in the case of selection of women coordinator Or Ø Working as Prerak / Nodal Prerak / Asst. Prerak / Nodal Asst. Prerak in Continuing Education Programme Preference Ø Preference shall be given to women and deprived sections of society. Ø Preference shall be given for ex-servicemen. 9. As per the averments made in the writ aﬃdavit it is clear that the petitioner possess the essential requirements as per G.O.Ms.No.203 and he also secured highest marks of 19 in the interview and belongs to B.C.-A community, which shall be given preference as per the said G.O. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the oﬃcial respondents, they have not denied the averments made by the petitioner with regard to possessing of essential requirements and securing of highest marks in the entire mandal, in the interview held on 17.06.2010 . Therefore, when the petitioner secured highest marks in the interview and possess the essential requirements and belongs to B.C.-A community, denying the post of Mandal Coordinator and appointing the 5th respondent, amounts to violation of G.O.Ms.No.203 and hence cannot be sustained. 10. The only reason given in the counter aﬃdavit is that the petitioner is working as Village Coordinator. At the cost of repetition, as per the essential requirements extracted above, the petitioner fulﬁlls the eligibility criteria and secured highest marks. There is no speciﬁc condition that the person working as Village Coordinator cannot be considered for the post of a Mandal Coordinator. Therefore, in my considered view, when the petitioner and the 5th respondent belongs to same social status and admittedly the petitioner secured the highest marks in the interview and fulﬁlls the eligibility criteria, denying the opportunity, is not legal and permissible under law and amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appointment of 5th respondent as Mandal Coordinator is set aside and the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for issuance of appointment order, appointing him as Mandal Coordinator pursuant to the interview held on 17.06.2011, based on the merit secured in the said interview, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------- 01—12—2011