IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 6656 of 2008 Between: B. Satya Varaprasad, S/o B. B.V. Rama Rao D. No. 55-9-14, R&B Staff Colony Near Central Jail Rajahmundry East Godavari district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Registrar (Admn.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 District Judge, East godavari district, at Rajahmundry, 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 Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in conducting the selection process for the posts of Attenders Pursuant to the General Notification No. 1/2008 dt 19-9-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order directing the respondents to drop the Selection process being adopted by the 2nd respondent for the selection to the post of Attenders in the District Court, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI (SC FOR APHC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.6656 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) Whether the competent authority is entitled to shortlist the candidates for the purpose of interview to the post of attenders under the Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service Rules, 1992 (the Rules, for brevity), is the question that falls for consideration in this Writ Petition. The petitioner passed 10th class. He belongs to BC-A category. Pursuant to the employment notification dated 19.09.2007 issued by the second respondent, the petitioner applied to the post of attender in the Unit of East Godavari District. He also, statedly, has got driving licence, and therefore, claims preference in the selection in accordance with the guidelines contained in the employment notification. Be that as it may, as per the employment notification as well as the Rules, a candidate for being appointed to the post of attender must have passed 7th class and should enclose the marks list. The second respondent commenced interviews on 01.03.2008. The petitioner, however, did not receive any intimation to attend to interview. Therefore, he made enquiries. Statedly, he came to know that one Rajesh who got less number of marks in 7th class is called for interview, and the petitioner was not short listed for calling for interview. Therefore, he filed the instant Writ Petition challenging the selection process as being contrary to Rules and principles of natural justice. The second respondent filed the counter affidavit. The allegation that even though Rajesh got less number of marks, he was called for interview, is denied. It is stated that said Rajesh falls under BC-D category, and therefore, candidates were shortlisted. According to the marks he obtained, he was shortlisted, and the petitioner cannot have any grievance. Insofar as the denial of opportunity to appear for the interview, it is stated that even in the employment notification it was notified that if there are more than 20 candidates applying for a vacancy, the appointing authority will be free to shortlist the candidates on the basis of marks in the qualifying examination i.e., 7th class. It is further stated that for three posts reserved for BC-A category in the present recruitment as many as 1451 applications are received. Therefore, these candidates were shortlisted in the ratio of 1:25 (total 75 candidates) after taking into consideration the marks obtained by all of them in 7th class. The first shortlisted candidate in BC-A category secured 447 marks and 75th candidate secured 237 marks. The petitioner secured 236 marks, and therefore, he was not called for interview. A reference is also made to the revised guidelines issued by the High Court as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Y.Srinivas v The Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P. (W.P.No.2208 of 2007, dated 07.11.2007). Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that when no written test is prescribed, and in the absence of any prescription in the notification that candidates who secured good marks would only be called for interview, denial of such opportunity to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that when a candidate is called for interview, he is only given an opportunity of being considered, and therefore, no prejudice would be caused for calling all the candidates to the interview. These contentions are refuted by the learned Standing Counsel for High Court. It is no doubt true that the Rules are silent as to method and manner of selecting attenders. We may take judicial notice of the fact that in these days of depleting public employment opportunities, there is an enormous craving for Government jobs. Even selection process initiated by recruiting single digit or double digit posts attracts 10s of 1000s of applications aspiring unemployed youth. If all of them are called for a screening test or written test or oral interview, as the case may be, it would certainly be a burden on the decision making authority as well as the candidates who may have to travel long distances spending valuable money and time. Therefore, a rational method of restricted consideration is not impressible, especially, when there is vaccum in the statutory rules. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued circular dated 01.07.1996 laying down norms/guidelines for recruitment to various categories posts like Junior Assistants, Steno Typists, Typists, Examiners, Readers, Copyists, Amins, Drivers, Record Assistants and Attenders in subordinate Courts. These guidelines are comprehensive. Paragraphs 7(a), (c), (e) and 8(a) read as under. 7. (a) Ministerial Service: For the purpose of screeing/shortlisting of the applications for the posts in Ministerial Services, the Committee shall take into consideration the marks secured in the qualifying examination and those who secured first class or 60% and above in the qualifying examination may be preferred to others, subject however to the rider that those having qualification in Typewriting (Higher Grade)/or Shorthand and those possessing Law Degree are not denied consideration. (c) Attenders: For the purpose of screening and shortlisting of the applications for the posts of Attenders, the applicants having qualification over and above Matriculation/SSC can be shortlisted unless it is apparent from the application that they have certain professional skills, such as Driving, Carpentry, Cooking, Electrical, Painting, Plumbing etc., which make them prima facie suitable for the job. (e) The Selection Committee shall screen all the applications from Lists ‘A’ to ‘C’ and shortlist the same, keeping in view that not more than 25 candidates will be considered for each vacancy. 8. Written Test: (a) For all categories of posts other than Attenders, a written test of the standard consistent with the minimum qualifications prescribed shall be held. A short analysis of the above paragraphs would show that for the post of attenders a written test cannot be conducted. Attenders are appointed only based on an interview. However, when much number of applications are received for one post, only 25 candidates need to be called for interview. It is also permissible that while preparing shortlist, the applicants having qualification over and above of metriculation/S.S.C can be shortlisted unless it is apparent that they have certain professional skills such as driving, carpentry, electrical, painting etc. Whether the circular issued by High Court suffers from any vice? The answer should be in the negative. The Division Bench of this Court in Y.Srinivas (supra) made reference to Mohd. Raizul Usman Gani v District & Sessions Judge[1], and Union of India v T.Sundararaman[2], and observed that rational criteria reasonably related to the object of recruitment consistent with the guidelines issued by the High Court, would not fail the impugned action of the learned District Judge. The shortlists for BC-A and BC-D category have been placed before this Court. These two essentially are sufficient evidence to the contention in the counter that Rajesh belongs to BC-D category and petitioner was at No.76 in the shortlist among BC-A category. The method adopted by the learned District Judge, therefore, is not suspect of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, nor is there any discrimination or arbitrariness, as alleged. We see no merit in the Writ Petition. As an interlocutory measure, this Court on 30.04.2008 directed learned District Judge to interview the petitioner. In obedience thereto, it appears, petitioner has been interviewed, and therefore, we observe that his case may also be considered along with other interviewed candidates of the post of BC-A category. The Writ Petition, with the above observation, is dismissed accordingly. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J ) 25.06.2008 vs To 1 The Registrar (Admn.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The District Judge, East Godavari District, at Rajahmundry, East Godavari District 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} [1] (2000) 2 SCC 606 [2] (1997) 4 SCC 664 = 1997 SCC (L & S) 988