HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.1114 and 1115 of 2002 COMMON ORDER:- Writ Petition No.1114 of 2002 is filed by one Kakumanu Ravi Kumar questioning the appointment of the 7th respondent G. Sarath Babu therein to the aided post of Junior Lecturer in Mathematics in the 6th respondent college i.e. V.T. Junior College, Ineespeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. Similarly, Writ Petition No.1115 of 2002 is filed by one Dasari Vimala Kumari questioning the appointment of the 7th respondent Chavvakula Naga Rani therein to the aided post of Junior Lecturer in English in the above college which is also shown as 6th respondent in the said writ petition. As the controversy pertains to appointments to the aided posts of lecturers mentioned supra in the same college and as other respondents in both the writ petitions are common and their pleas are common, both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common order. 2. The admitted facts or circumstances leading to the filing of these two writ petitions are these. The management of V.T. Junior College, Ineespeta, Rajahmundry, gave a paper advertisement dated 11.12.2001 in Andhra Bhoomi Telugu daily news paper and other papers inviting applications for three aided posts of Junior Lecturers i.e. one each in the subjects of English, Mathematics and Physics. It is stated in the said advertisement that the post of Junior Lecturer in English is reserved for Scheduled Caste (A) Women, the post of Junior Lecturer in Mathematics is reserved for Scheduled Castes (B) general, and the post of Junior Lecturer in Physics is reserved for Scheduled Tribes (Women). It should be noted here that the notification is actually dated 07.12.2001 but it was published in the above newspaper and some other newspapers on 11.12.2001 with a condition that applications of the qualified candidates with the qualifications and marks must reach the Correspondent of the said college who is the 5th respondent in both the writ petitions within seven days from the date of publication of the notification in the newspapers. In other words, according to the notification the applications should reach the Correspondent of the college in question on or before 18.12.2001 as per the notifications. 3. The case of Sri Kakumanu Naveen Kumar i.e. the petitioner in W.P.No.1114 of 2002 is he belongs to S.C.(B) category and he passed post graduation course in Mathematics from Hindu College, Guntur, in March 2000 by securing 65.7% and he was the most eligible candidate for the said post as the same was reserved for S.C.(B) category to which he belongs. His further version is that subsequently he came to know that Sri G.Sarath Babu, the 7th respondent, who belongs to S.C.(C) category and who secured even lesser marks than him came to be appointed for the said post in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 (for short Act 20 of 2000) and the rules governing the posts. He therefore claims that the appointment of the 7th respondent should be set aside and he should be appointed and this is the relief sought for by him in the said writ petition. 4. The case of Dasari Vimala Kumari who is the petitioner in W.P.No.1115 of 2002 is also similar. Her plea is that she belongs to S.C.(C) category and the 7th respondent therein also belongs to the same group and even though she (petitioner) secured the highest marks of 56.4% in M.A. Literature which is the qualification for the post of Junior Lecturer, the management of the 6th respondent college appointed the 7th respondent therein i.e. Chavvakula Naga Rani (also belongs to S.C.(C) category) though she secured only 56% in the qualifying examination and therefore her appointment is not in accordance with the rules and is invalid and consequently her appointment should be set aside and she (petitioner) should be appointed. 5. The 5th respondent i.e. the Correspondent of the V.T. Junior College, Ineespeta, Rajahmundry, in both these writ petitions filed separate counter affidavits for himself and the 6th respondent college opposing both the writ petitions. Their stand is that as per the advertisement, the applicants have to send their applications on or before 18.12.2001 but the application of Kakamanu Naveen Kumar reached their office on 19.12.2001 i.e. with a delay of one day and the application of Dasari Vimala Kumari on 27.12.2001 i.e. with a delay of more than 8 days. They therefore pleaded that as applications have to reach within the time and as the applications of both the petitioners were received belatedly they were not considered for appointments. They have also made it clear that if the applications of both the candidates had reached in time they would have considered them for appointment having regard to their qualifications but their candidatures could not be considered because of the belated receipt of their applications. Both respondents 5 and 6 also denied that they ever called the petitioners for interview and all their pleas in this behalf are not correct. They took this specific plea in answer to the contention of the petitioner Kakumanu Naveen Kumar that he also attended the interview. 6. The point now to be considered in these writ petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought for by them. 7. Before the point is taken up, it must be noted here that classification of scheduled castes for the purpose of reservation in posts has been made under the A.P. Act 20 of 2000. This Act has been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of A.P.[1] and this is now to the knowledge of everybody. Hence it may be noted that the fact that in the advertisement the Junior Lecturer posts in question were shown as reserved for certain category of scheduled castes has no significance and posts reserved for scheduled castes have to be treated as reserved for scheduled castes in general. The point is now taken up. 8. The case of the petitioners and also the stand taken by the respondents 5 and 6 have already been set out supra. It may be noted that in the case of Kakumanu Naveen Kumar and also in the case of Dasari Vimala Kumari, respondents 5 and 6 have admitted that they no doubt secured higher marks in the post graduation qualifications prescribed for the posts of Junior Lecturers in question than the persons appointed to the said posts. It thus follows that whatever be the category of Kakumanu Naveen Kumar and Dasari Vimala Kumari they both admittedly being candidates from scheduled castes they would have been qualification-wise eligible for the posts in question if they were otherwise entitled to the same and this is the legal position. Even if A.P. Act 20 of 2000 had been in force still they would have been eligible having regard to the marks secured by them as admitted by the respondents 5 and 6 and also the service rules governing the appointments to the posts in question but that is not of significance. The plea of respondents 5 and 6 is that both the petitioners did not submit their applications in time i.e. on or before 18.12.2001 which was the last date for submission of applications and therefore their candidatures were rejected. 9. The plea of the petitioner Kakumanu Naveen Kumar is that he was also called for interview and he attended it on 29.12.2001 before the selection committee along with all his certificates. This is however denied by respondents 5 and 6 in their counter and they say that his application was received on 19.12.2001 and therefore though they forwarded his application but he was not called for interview. They specifically pleaded that only three candidates namely Dersi Jayapal, Golla Sarath Babu (7th respondent in W.P.No.1114 of 2002) and M.Srinivasa Murthy submitted their applications for the post of Junior Lecturer (Mathematics) and only they were called for interview. Respondents 5 and 6 pleaded that since the application of Kakumanu Naveen Kumar was received belatedly he was disqualified irrespective of his caste and percentage of marks. They further stated that at the time of selection though the post of Junior Lecturer in Mathematics was reserved for S.C.(B) Candidates since no applications were received from that category the 7th respondent G.Sarath Babu belongs to S.C.(C) category who was more qualified at that time than all the candidates who submitted the applications in time was selected as rules provided for such selection in the absence of eligible candidates from S.C. (B) category. Respondents 5 and 6 took similar stand even in respect of Dasari Vimala Kumari and stated that her application was also received belatedly on 29.01.2001 and consequently the 7th respondent in her writ petition i.e. Chavvakula Naga Rani though her marks were slightly lesser than those secured by Dasari Vimala Kumari, was selected. In substance the stand of the respondents 5 and 6 is that if both the petitioners had submitted their applications in time they would have been selected but their candidatures were rejected only on the ground of not submitting the applications in time. 10. The question now to be considered is whether respondents 5 and 6 and the other respondents can be said to be justified in rejecting the candidatures of both the petitioners on the ground that their applications reached the office of 5th and 6th respondents after the prescribed last date for receipt of applications. On this aspect it should be noted that it is now well settled that an authority competent for recruitment and selection would always have the power to fix the conditions relating to eligibility in terms of qualifications including age and also the date by which the applications should be submitted by the candidates intending to apply for the post and such authority would also be competent to reject the applications if the same are not received on or before the last date prescribed for receipt of the applications. It is true that in the advertisement it is only stated that the applications should reach the correspondent of the college within seven days from the date of publication of the said advertisement or notification but it is not mentioned that applications received after that date are liable to be rejected. That does not make any difference. It should be noted that when it is specifically mentioned in an advertisement inviting applications for posts that the applications should reach the concerned authority within a specified time i.e. either seven days or ten days it impliedly means that applications should reach the competent authority within that prescribed time or else they would be rejected and this fixation of time limit for submitting applications should be treated as mandatory. In the present case as per the advertisement which was published in the Andhra Bhoomi daily newspaper on 11.12.2001 it follows that applications should reach the correspondent on or before 18.12.2001 as the period of seven days reckoned from 11.12.2001 would expire by that date i.e. 18.12.2001. No other conclusion is permissible. 11. It may be noted that if the last date prescribed for receipt of applications is relaxed in favour of any candidate on any ground the same relaxation has to be granted for other candidates and the last date has to be extended indefinitely to accommodate the candidates. If such a course is followed the very purpose of recruitment to fill up the posts within the time prescribed would be defeated and the concerned authority may not be in a position at all to fill up the posts. Hence it follows that the candidates who intend to apply for the posts notified or advertised must be held to be bound by the schedule and the qualifications prescribed in the notification and if any candidate violates it he must be held to be doing so at his peril and no court can go to the rescue of such a candidate. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not bring to my notice any provision of law or rule or any authority to hold otherwise. It therefore follows that the cases of both the petitioners for appointments and their claims must be rejected as devoid of merits. 12. One contention which was raised by the learned counsel for petitioners was that the petitioner Kakumanu Naveen Kumar in fact attended the interview on 29.12.2001 but this is denied by the respondents 5 and 6. This is a disputed question of fact and in my opinion the record also need not be called for as a writ petition is always entertained on admitted facts. Apart from the above two grounds no other ground was raised in the writ petitions. 13. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 12th August 2011 CVRK [1] (2005) 1 SCC 394 = AIR 2005 SC 162