A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

Introductory:-

1. The Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondent in not appointing the petitioner as Field Assistant in District Court, East Godavari despite being the eligible candidate, as arbitrary and violative of Notification bearing No.4/2022-RC dated 21.10.2022, and consequently, direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Field Assistant in the District Court, East Godavari.

Case of the Petitioner:-

2. [i] The petitioner has applied for the post of Field Assistant in District Court, East Godavari pursuant to the notification No.4/2022-RC dated 21.10.2022 for direct recruitment, in terms of Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 2019. Accordingly, he has appeared for the written examination at Rajahmundry. After verification of the marks and documents, SAAP Scrutiny Committee published a tentative priority list in accidence with G.O.Ms.No.74 and 8. His name is found in Sl.No.2, whereas one Mr.YJDMS Chiranjeevi obtained rank No.1, in the tentative priority list.

                  [ii] Said Chiranjeevi submitted a letter stating that he does not wish to take the post of Field Assistant, since he is already working in Kakinada Municipality office. The Writ Petitioner visited the office of the respondent and requested to allow him to join as Field Assistant and he has also submitted a representation requesting to consider him as the eligible candidate to be appointed as Field Assistant, since the candidate placed at Sl.No.1 of the Priority list is unwilling to join the post.

                  [iii] As per the notification bearing No.4/2022-RC dated 21.10.2022, note in the Page No.5 of the Notification states that - “If the provisionally selected candidate does not join the post, the next meritorious candidate may be considered for provisional selection”.

                  [iv] Since the petitioner is the next meritorious candidate, he should be considered for selection to the post of Field Assistant, particularly in view of the fact that the candidate provisionally selected immediately above the petitioner has communicated his unwillingness to join the service. Since his request was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed for seeking necessary directions.

3. [i] Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent formally opposing the petition. The contention of the respondent is that in the Final Priority list, Priority No.27 was assigned to three candidates placing YJDMS Chiranjeevi at Sl.No.1, Bheemavarapu Rama Krishna at Sl.No.2 and Karanam Sai Sreekara at Sl.No.3.

                  [ii] Further it is submitted by the respondent that at the end of the Final Priority list, the SAAP mentioned as follows:

                  “Note: When the same priority is given to more than one candidate, then the recruitment agency has to break the tie by following respective guidelines mentioned in the notification or departmental recruitment guidelines”.

                  “Example: first basing on marks obtained by the candidates in the examination and then age etc., the merit ranks for sports quota candidate should be announced by the respective recruiting agencies based on the above procedure.

                  [iii] Basing on the above guidelines, the top 3 candidates, who were allotted same priority, were considered based on the marks secured in the Computer based exam. In that scenario, one YJDMS Chiranjeevi was placed at No.1 and hence, he was provisionally selected for the post of Field Assistant.

                  [iv] Further it is submitted that, one Karanam Sai Sreekara placed at Sl.No.2 has secured more marks than Bhimavarapu Rama Krishna and the petitioner herein was placed at Sl.No.3 and even if the second list is prepared taking into account the non-joining of first candidate etc., there is no likelihood of the petitioner coming up for consideration for provisional selection for the reason that, he secured less marks in the Computer Based Test, than that of Karanam Sai Sreekara, who secured same priority as that of the petitioner.

                  [v] It is also submitted that the respondent Mr.YJDMS Chiranjeevi who got priority No.1, submitted a letter dated 15.07.2024 stating that he do not wish to take the post of Field Assistant since he is working in Kakinada Municipality office. There is no official communication received by the High Court from the Principal District Court concerned regarding the non-joinder letter submitted by the provisionally selected candidates and such letter should have been submitted with all the enclosures. In the absence of comprehensive report with enclosures, the representation cannot be placed for necessary orders before the Committee constituted for Recruitment- cum-examination.

4. In respect of the query that said Karanam Sai Sreekara said to be above in the list as shown in the counter of the respondent whether joined, it is reported that said Sai Srikara got selection at Guntur District also for the post of Field Assistant. Further, with regard to question whether he has joined in Guntur District, a report is submitted by the Registrar (Recruitment) on behalf of the respondent that Karanam Sai Sreekara is not willing to join either in East Godavari or in Guntur District.

5. Thereafter, it is also submitted by the respondent enclosing a letter dated 27.11.2025 of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari, addressed to the Registrar (Recruitment), High Court of A.P., that appointment orders were issued to the writ petitioner viz., Sri Bheemavarapu Rama Krishna (H.T.No.22121018730) and that the writ petitioner has joined the duty on 27.11.2025 at VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Rajamahendravaram and on deputation joined duty in Principal District Court, Rajamahendravaram on the A.N. of 27.11.2025. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner also submitted that the writ petitioner has joined the duty.

6. In the context of the case, we feel it necessary to observe that if the persons engaged in the process of selection and appointment had been more vigilant, the present litigation could have been avoided, saving valuable time of the Court. We expect that all persons concerned with the recruitment process in the respondent institution will take the present case as an example and ensure that unnecessary litigation is avoided by displaying required timely care and due diligence.

7. In view of the fact that appointment order was issued to the writ petitioner and as the petitioner having joined the duty, this Court finds that no further orders are necessary.

8. Accordingly the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

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