THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 32314 OF 1997 Date: 07.02.2008 Between: K.S.S.L. Katyayani Devi. … Petitioner and The Principal (incharge) and Secretary & Correspondent, A.V.S. Junior Colege, Pulletikurru, E.G. Dist and two others. … Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 32314 OF 1997 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the first respondent in not selecting the petitioner, and in selecting the third respondent, to the post of Typist as arbitrary and illegal. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner who was hitherto working temporarily with the first respondent was considered, along with other candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P. No. 26436 of 1997 dated 31.10.1997. It is her case that there was no comparative assessment of merit and that merely on the ground that the third respondent possessed higher qualifications, she was appointed while denying the petitioner the benefit of appointment to the post of typist. Sri P.V.S.S. Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, since the qualification prescribed is SSC with higher-grade typewriting in English, the mere fact that the third respondent possessed qualification higher than the qualification prescribed in the notification would not, by itself, justify selecting the third respondent and in denying the petitioner appointment to the said post without subjecting both of them to a comparative assessment of their relative merit. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on State of U.P. Vs. Om Prakash[1]. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, on the other hand, would refer to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, to contend that a selection process was in fact undertaken and, on assessment of comparative merit, the third respondent was found more suitable than the petitioner and was therefore appointed as a Typist. Learned Government Pleader would also point out that not only was the third respondent more meritorious in the selection process, she also possessed qualification far higher than that of the petitioner and the action of the first respondent in appointing her as the Typist, and in denying the petitioner appointment to the said post cannot, by any standards, be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary. The notification issued, inviting applications for appointment to the post of typist, prescribes the qualification required for the said post. While the essential qualification prescribed is higher grade typewriting in English, the desirable qualification is any other qualification. In Om Prakash1, the Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgment in A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu[2] to hold that a mere rule of preference, meant to give weightage to additional qualifications, cannot be enforced as a rule of reservation or a rule of complete precedence, that such a construction would not only undermine the scheme of selection on the basis of merit performance but would also work great hardship and injustice to those who possess the required minimum educational qualification with which they are entitled to compete with those possessing additional qualification too, and demonstrate their superiority meritwise and their suitability for the post. Even if the far higher qualifications possessed by the third respondent were to be ignored, a perusal of the counter-affidavit would show that the first respondent had interviewed the petitioner along with the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange though the petitioner’s name was not sponsored by the employment exchange and, as the post for which the selections were sought to be made was that of a typist, the petitioner, along with the other candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, were directed to type the given paper to know their talent, that the petitioner was also subjected to the same test to evaluate her talent, that on correcting the typed papers the unofficial respondent was found to be more suitable than the petitioner, that the unofficial respondent, who was more meritorious than the petitioner, was rightly selected and that the Selection Committee has selected the third respondent as Typist on merit basis only. Those specific averments in the counter-affidavit have not been rebutted by way of any reply affidavit. Since the petitioner and the third respondent were both subjected to a selection process, their skills in typing was assessed and the third respondent was found more meritorious than the petitioner and as appointment of the third respondent was not merely on the ground that she possessed higher qualifications, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash1, referred to herein above has no application to the facts of the case on hand. Since the third respondent was found more meritorious than the petitioner in the typing test held, the action of the first respondent in appointing her as typist, instead of the petitioner herein, cannot be faulted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________________ Date: 07.02.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR [1] (2006)6 SCC 474 [2] (2003) 5 SCC 341