Common Order

Challa Gunaranjan, J.

1. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in W.P.No.37709 of 2018.

2. (a) Petitioner, a post-graduate in commerce, was initially appointed on 01.07.2007, as Junior Lecturer in 5th respondent College for a period of one year on consolidated pay. The said appointment was on temporary basis. Petitioner joined 5th respondent College accordingly and completed one year of service. Later, once again, he was appointed as Lecturer on similar terms in the year 2010, and since then he has been working as Lecturer in Commerce. The Special Commissioner, Collegiate Education, A.P., issued proceedings, dated 13.03.2017, granting permission to 5th respondent College for filling up vacant aided post of Lecturer in Commerce under S.C. backlog vacancy. In pursuance to the same, 5th respondent College issued notification, dated 17.03.2017, inviting applications from eligible candidates.

                  (b) Petitioner applied for the said post, and he was called for interview. As in the interview conducted on 04.09.2017, the selection committee neither verified the experience certificates of petitioner nor said anything about conducting teaching test, petitioner raised an objection regarding non-adherence to the procedure as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CE-I-2) Department, dated 10.01.1992, which envisaged the procedure of selection in making appointments. Petitioner later obtained minutes of meeting and found that the procedure followed by the selection committee in selecting the right candidate was completely flawed and deviated from the procedure laid down in G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 10.01.1992.

                  (c) In those circumstances, as recommendation was made to select unofficial respondent, petitioner made representation, dated 04.12.2017, and thereafter preferred W.P.No.3887 of 2018, inter alia, seeking direction to respondents to consider his case for regular appointment as Lecturer in Commerce in the aided post and also assailed the selection of unofficial respondent.

                  (d) In W.P.No.3887 of 2018, while issuing notice on 07.02.2018, this Court directed 3rd respondent therein, who is 4th respondent herein, to consider petitioner’s representation, dated 04.12.2017, within a period of four weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

                  (e) In pursuance to the same, 4th respondent passed order, dated 31.03.2018, rejecting the plea of petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached 3rd respondent, Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education, raising grievance and the same was rejected by order, dated 30.05.2018, confirming the order of 4th respondent. Yet again, petitioner preferred further appeal to 1st respondent and thereafter, filed W.P.No.37709 of 2018, challenging G.O.Ms.No.397, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 10.11.2016; G.O.Ms.No.94, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 31.07.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.65, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 18.04.2018, extending the ad-hoc Rule issued in G.O.Ms.No.214, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 08.05.2001, to fill up the backlog vacancies of S.Cs., and S.Ts. waiving normal procedure for selection of Lecturers upto 31.03.2019 and selecting unofficial respondent while rejecting the claim of petitioner, by proceedings, dated 31.03.2018, issued by 4th respondent, as confirmed by order, dated 30.05.2018, by 3rd respondent Special Commission of Collegiate Education, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

3. The official respondents have not filed counter-affidavit, however, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education would state that as the impugned order, dated 31.03.2018, issued by 4th respondent and confirmed in appeal vide order, dated 30.05.2018, are speaking orders and specific reasons are assigned, they would not intend to file the counter-affidavit.

4. Heard Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for official respondents.

5. At the very outset, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner fairly stated that since the respondents have passed speaking orders in pursuance to the interim directions granted in W.P.No.3887 of 2018, cause in the said writ petition no longer survives and thus, rendered infructuous.

6. Insofar as W.P.No.37709 of 2018 is concerned, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner contended that the very selection and filling up of backlog posts in aided vacancies of 5th respondent College by resorting to procedure contemplated under ad-hoc rules, issued vide G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 08.05.2001, for the purpose of filling up S.C. backlog posts by waiving the requirement of written test and interview is vitiated, inasmuch as the same would apply only for temporary posts, but not for appointments made to regular posts. He further contended that for filling up of regular posts, one has to necessarily follow the procedure envisaged in special rules as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 10.01.1992, therefore, the selection and confirmation of appointment in favour of unofficial respondent vide impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent, as confirmed by 3rd respondent Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education, is illegal and arbitrary. He also contended that the impugned proceedings indicate that merit list was prepared based on AP SET, 2006, which is incorrect and if the same is to be applied, petitioner, being more meritorious, would be entitled for selection in that regard. As petitioner has already preferred further appeal to 1st respondent, which is pending, learned senior counsel would urge to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

7. Conversely, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for official respondents submits that petitioner, having participated in the selection in pursuance to the notification, dated 17.03.2017, cannot later challenge the method and manner of selection undertaken, since he could not get through the same. Petitioner, in the first instance, by filing W.P.No.3887 of 2018 sought for considering his case for regular appointment as Lecturer in Commerce in the aided post in 5th respondent College in preference to the unofficial respondent as per the merit, therefore, it is only the merit which would matter in making the selection. Since petitioner was found to be placed at Sl.No.5 in the merit list, he cannot claim any right as such for appointment to the subject post. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made above besides going through the material available on record.

9. Petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in Commerce on temporary basis by following the Rules as per G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 08.05.2001. The said Rules envisage filling up of posts meant for backlog vacancies of S.Cs. & S.Ts. without there being any written examination and interview and merely basing on marks obtained in the qualifying academic examination. Petitioner is a postgraduate in Commerce. He also did M.Phil and later PhD from Acharya Nagarjuna University. He, initially, in W.P.No.3887 of 2018, sought for considering his case for regular appointment in preference to the unofficial respondents as per the merit. The selection committee constituted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 10.01.1992, has undertaken the exercise of filling up of S.C. backlog aided vacant posts in the 5th respondent College. The merit list was prepared based on marks secured in P.G. examination, besides also considering overall merit having regard to NET/SET/SLET/Ph.D. Amongst 15 candidates appeared before the selection committee, the unofficial respondent, who had 73.25% of marks in P.G. stood at Sl.No.1 and whereas petitioner with 63.64% of marks in P.G. stood at Sl.No.5. Accordingly, the committee had made recommendation to 4th respondent for approval. The same was approved by proceedings, dated 31.03.2018 and later confirmed by orders, dated 30.05.2018.

10. Petitioner, having derived advantage on account of G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 08.05.2001, in the initial stage of appointment, now cannot take a different stand to contend otherwise that the respondents should not have at all followed the said Rules while filling up the vacancies on regular basis. It is not the case of petitioner that he is more meritorious in any manner than the unofficial respondent, therefore, he has been overlooked and denied the post. Admittedly, the unofficial respondent secured highest percentage of marks compared to any other candidate, including the petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any impropriety in the manner in which selections were undertaken nor that the respondents have violated the applicable rules of selection.

11. In view of the aforesaid observations, we find no merit in these writ petitions.

12. Accordingly, both writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed.