IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.23889 of 2009 BETWEEN: B.Jyothsna ….PETITIONER(S) and The Divisional Forest Officer, Adilabad Division, Adilabad District and others …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.23889 of 2009 ORDER:( Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) Petitioner, who was impleaded as respondent no.5 in O.A.No.10735 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, as per the orders of the Tribunal in M.A.No.3719 of 2009, filed this petition aggrieved by the interim orders of the Tribunal dated 25.09.2009 passed in O.A.Nos.10735 and 10746 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the official respondents therein were directed to permit the applicants to participate in the selection process but stayed the publication of results. The petitioner also filed V.M.A.No.1989 of 2009 in O.A.No.10735 of 2009 before the Tribunal seeking to set aside the interim orders passed by the Tribunal referred above. In this petition, the petitioner seeks to declare the orders of the Tribunal dated 25.09.2009, in so far as it relates to not publishing of the results as arbitrary and erroneous, and set aside the same, or alternatively to suspend the same till disposal of the V.M.A.No.1989 of 2009 in O.A.No.10735 of 2009 or till disposal of the O.A. itself. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for petitioner; the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3; and Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the O.A. Petitioner herein is the 5th respondent in the O.A., respondents 1 to 3, who are official respondents, are arrayed in the same position in the O.A., and respondents 4 to 6 herein are the applicants in the O.A. On 05.11.2009, this Court issued Notice Before Admission and, by orders dated 25.11.2009, this Court, based on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that the O.A. was adjourned to 30.11.2009 finally at the instance of the learned Government Pleader, requested the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the O.A. or the V.M.A. Today, all the learned counsel appearing for the parties have submitted that for one reason or the other, either the V.M.A. or the O.A. are being adjourned from time to time and consented for hearing and disposing of the writ petition deciding the lis involved in the O.A. also. The case of the applicants is that the 1st respondent issued notification vide letter no.5301/2007 S2 dated 04.03.2008 for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Beat Officer, Forest Beat Officer and Forest Section Officer in Adilabad Division; that there are five divisions in Adilabad District viz., Adilabad, Kagaznagar, Jannaram, Mancherial and Nirmal; that in the said notification, so far as Adilabad Division is concerned, 7 posts for the Assistant Beat Officer, 4 posts for the Forest Beat Officer and 10 posts for the Forest Section Officer were notified; and that, pursuant to the said notification, they have applied for the post of Forest Section Officer. Out of 10 posts of Forest Section Officer, 2 posts for Scheduled Tribes (Female); 1 post for Scheduled Tribes (Male); 1 post for O.C. (Female); 4 posts for O.C. (General); 1 post for B.C. (Group-A) and 1 post for B.C. (Group-B) were notified. It is also stated that they have appeared for the written test conducted on 30.08.2009. It is their contention that though a separate notification was issued for Adilabad division, the official respondents have failed to conduct the written test separately division wise, as was done during 2006 and 2008 recruitments. It is also their contention that even in the written test malpractices took place with the help of departmental people, because as per the condition prescribed in the question paper itself, the candidates are not allowed to take the question papers outside the examination halls, but the questions papers were permitted to be taken out from the examination halls. The applicants further contend that after completing the written test, the respondents have called only 60 candidates for walking test for 39 posts of Forest Sections Officer, instead of calling the candidates in 1:6 ratio and also failed to call the candidates in 1:3 ratio to the interview. Hence, the applicants sought to declare the action of the respondents in not conducting the selection process division wise including the conducting of written test for appointment to the post of Forest Section Officer, even though notifications were issued division wise separately, and not following the conditions prescribed in the notification as illegal and arbitrary and, consequently, to direct the official respondents to allow them to participate in the selection process division wise in Adilabad District and permit them to participate in walking test and subsequent process. As per the notification, the method of selection is in 3 steps. In the 1st step, a written test comprising of two papers will be conducted for which the minimum qualifying marks prescribed is 35% in each paper and a candidate has to get total 40% marks in aggregate. In the 1st paper thereof, there will be a test of essay writing which can be written in English, Telugu and Urdu languages and, in the 2nd paper thereof, there will be a test in General Knowledge and Mathematics which can be written in English, Telugu and Urdu. In the 2nd step, the candidates who have qualified in the 1st stage shall be subjected to the test of walking of 25 kms distance in four hours for males and 14 kms distance in four hours for females. In the 3rd step, the candidates only those who have qualified in the walking test will be interviewed by the selection committee as per G.O.Ms.No.348 General Administration (Services.A) Department dated 15.06.1988. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants have qualified in the written test and thus they are liable to be subjected to the walking test i.e. 2nd step test, but they were not called for the walking test. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to certain allegations made against the official respondents in respect of the malpractices that have taken place in the examination halls and further contended that even though notifications were issued division wise separately the official respondents have not followed the conditions prescribed therein and not allowed the applicants to participate in the selection process division wise and, therefore, sought to direct the respondents to permit the applicants to participate in the walking test and the subsequent selection process. As stated above, the Tribunal by order dated 25.09.2009 in O.A.No.23889 of 2009 directed the official respondents to permit the applicants to participate in the selection process but stayed the publication of results. The petitioner herein and another filed V.M.A.No.1989 of 2009 seeking to vacate the stay of publication of results. It is submitted that though counter and additional counter affidavits have been filed before the Tribunal, neither the O.A. nor the V.M.A. is disposed of by it, for one reason or the other. We have considered the rival contentions and perused G.O.Ms.No.348 General Administration (Services.A) Department dated 15.06.1988 wherein it was clarified that where there is a composite test consisting of written test followed by a viva-voce test in the form of interview, the number of candidates to be called for interview in the order of marks obtained in the written test should not exceed twice or at the highest thrice the number of the vacancies to be filled. The Government issued special rules called the Andhra Pradesh Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2000, vide G.O.Ms.No.88 Environment Forest Science & Technology (For.IV) Department dated 19.07.2000, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, in supercession of the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.497, FAF (For.IV) Department dated 04.12.1986. Rule 14 thereof deals with the method of selection which says that the selection of candidate by direct recruitment shall be made by the selection committee constituted by the Government and the selection process is as extracted under. “The Selection Committee constituted by the Government will select candidates after subjecting them to the following tests. a) First step: First step is written test i.e., qualifying examination consisting of two papers of two hours duration each, one in Essay writing in English or Telugu or Urdu and other in General Knowledge and Mathematics to be answered in English or Telugu or Urdu. A minimum of 35% of marks in each subject but an aggregate of 40% in total is required to qualify for the second step. b) Second step: The candidates selected in the First step shall be subjected to the test of walking 25 Km distance in four hours for the posts in Category 3 to 6 in Class-A. The candidate fulfilling this step shall qualify for the next step viz., interview. c) Third step: The candidates selected at the second step be interviewed by the Selection committee. There is no dispute vis-à-vis following of 1st step in the selection process and the applicants having appeared along with many others and qualified in the written test. As per Rule 14 extracted above, the candidates who are selected in the 1st step shall be subjected to the 2nd step of selection process i.e. walking test and the candidates who are selected in the 2nd step are entitled to the 3rd step i.e. interview by the selection committee. We are of the opinion that the word ‘selected’ in 2nd and 3rd steps means ‘qualified’ only as is used in the 1st step. That is to say, who ever gets a minimum of 35% of marks in each subject but an aggregate of 40% of the marks in the written test is entitled to participate in the 2nd step. Merely because the applicants have qualified in the 1st step, it cannot be said that they have been selected in the 1st step. Only the candidates who have passed in the walking test will be called to appear in the interview i.e. the 3rd step, in the ratio of 1:3. The case of the applicants is that they were not subjected to the walking test. At this juncture, it is the contention of the Government that the 1st applicant (4th respondent herein), who belongs to BC-D category, got 31 marks in Paper-I and 38 marks in Paper – II with a total of 69 marks, could not even qualify in the written test conducted on 30.08.2009 for the post of Forest Section Officer and hence he is not eligible for the 2nd step i.e. walking test. So far as applicants 2 and 3 (respondents 5 and 6 herein) is concerned, they have applied from Adilabad Division in OC category and it is submitted that in Adilabad division, for the post of Forest Section Officer, 4 posts were notified in OC (General) category, that only 62 candidates were qualified in the written test for the said 4 posts and, out of them, keeping in view the posts available, candidates who have secured highest marks in the written test were subjected to the walking test and that they are only being called for the 3rd test i.e. interview. The grievance of the applicants is that though they qualified in the written test, they were not subjected to the walking test and, therefore, they are entitled to be subjected to the walking test and only after conducting the walking test, candidates are to be called for interview in the ratio of 1:3. But, it is the case of the Government as well as the learned counsel for the 5th respondent (petitioner herein) that all the candidates who qualified in the written test as well as walking test have secured much more marks than the applicants. Out of the 3 applicants, only 2nd and 3rd applicants (respondents 5 and 6 herein) have qualified in the written test. The 2nd and 3rd applicants secured 92 and 99 marks in aggregate, respectively, in the written test whereas the 12 meritorious candidates, who were called for interview i.e. 3rd test, have secured marks ranging from 161 to 118. Thus, it is the case of the Government that even if the applicants are subjected to the walking test and even if they qualify in the walking test they will not come up in the zone of the ratio of 1:3 and so they were not subjected to the walking test. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants is unable to contradict the said contention. However, he submits that though the applicants were subjected to walking test, they would not come within the zone of the ratio 1:3 to be called for interview is a separate issue, but the Government, under that pretext, cannot dispense with the conducting of walking test as they have duly qualified in the 1st step. Though we are of the opinion that the department has to conduct the walking test to all the candidates who have qualified in the written test, since, in the instant case, the said exercise, on the facts of this case, at present, will result in a futile one, inasmuch as more candidates, who have secured more marks, than that of the applicants 2 and 3, and also qualified in the walking test are available in the ratio of 1:3 for the interview, and since, even if the applicants 2 and 3 are subjected to and are qualified in the walking test, it would not entile them to participate in the interview, the same is liable to be dispensed with. In so far as the allegations made by the applicants that malpractices took place in the written test with the help of departmental people, the same are very vague and general and no particulars of such malpractices have been narrated. Vis-a-vis allowing the question papers out side the examination halls, the same is not covered by any of the recruitment rules or the notification and merely because a condition was there in the question paper, that itself is not a material irregularity which can vitiate the entire selection process. In any case, there is no allegation that question papers were taken out and answers were brought in by the candidates who have secured more marks. Even otherwise, the relief claimed in the O.A. is inconsistent with the stand taken by the applicants. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not see any merits in the O.A. itself and the same stands dismissed. Inasmuch as the O.A. itself is dismissed, impugned order of the Tribunal dated 25.09.2009 passed in O.A.Nos.10735 of 2009 automatically stands set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J 11th December 2009 CVRK