IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:24116 of 1997 Between: Kavali Subrahmanyam, S/o. venkaiah, R/o. Door.No. 22/1304, Vengal Rao Colony, CMT Road, Chittoor , Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Selection Committee, the A.P.S.R.T.C., Tirupathi Region for selection of Conductor Grade-II rep.by Regional Manager, Tirupathi. 2 The Regional Manager,A.P.S.R.T.C, TIRUPATHI REGION, Tirupathi. 3 The Personnel Officer,A.P.S.R.T.C, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4 S.Ramakrishnaiah, S/o. Seethaiah, C/o. The Personel Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.P.CHANDRAMOULI Counsel for the Respondents:NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in selecting respondent No.4 in preference to the petitioner as Conductor Grade II in Tirupathi Region in pursuance of advertisement, dated 08.05.1997 and interview, dated 21.08.1997, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste Community (Category-D), was interviewed for the post of Conductor Grade II by the competent authority of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) on 21.08.1997. He claimed that he attended the interview with all the required certiﬁcates and got 83.6 marks to his credit. He averred that from the list of the selected candidates published by the respondents, he found that respondent No.4 was selected, though he has got only 81.6 marks. He has, therefore, ﬁled the present writ petition questioning his non-selection and selection of respondent No.4 in his place. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Law Oﬃcer of the Corporation, it is admitted that the petitioner has got 84% marks including bonus marks as against 81.6% marks including bonus marks obtained by respondent No.4. The only reason put forth in the counter-aﬃdavit for non-selection of the petitioner is that the candidate shall submit latest nativity and caste certiﬁcates along with the application, but the petitioner failed to submit the same and, therefore, he was not considered for selection under S.C. Category. The reason put forth by the respondents, to my mind appears to be specious. If the respondents were not satisﬁed about the certiﬁcates produced by the petitioner, he should not have been interviewed at all. If on the basis of the certiﬁcates produced by the petitioner, the respondents have entertained any doubt about the petitioner’s caste or nativity, fairness required that they should have asked the petitioner to produce the latest certiﬁcates. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner failed to produce any certiﬁcate pertaining to his caste and nativity. In my considered view, denying public employment to a person, who is found more meritorious than respondent No.4, is in serious violation of the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India apart from the same constituting patent arbitrariness. In the face of the admission by the respondents that the petitioner secured higher marks than respondent No.4, and the fact that the required opportunity was not given to the petitioner to submit the latest nativity and caste certiﬁcates, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. Having regard to the lapse of more than eleven years, I am not prepared to set aside the appointment of respondent No.4, as, such a course would cause undue hardship to him. Instead, the Corporation shall appoint the petitioner either in the existing post or create an additional post, if no vacancy exists at present. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed subject to the following terms: 1) Within eight (8) weeks from today, the petitioner shall ﬁle his representation to respondent No.2 conveying his willingness to join as Conductor. He shall enclose the latest nativity and caste certificates, and 2) Within four (4) weeks thereafter, subject to veriﬁcation of the petitioner’s nativity and caste certiﬁcates, respondent No.2 shall appoint the petitioner as Conductor. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni