APHC010147112021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8671/2021 Between: G. Saritha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR 2. The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner herein had been working as a Steno-typist on a contract basis, in the VI Additonal District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati. Thereafter, she sought absorption/regularisation to the said post in terms of the orders in I.A.No.36 of Transfer Cases (c)No.22 of 2001, dated 13.09.2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 2 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.8671 of 2021 2. The case of the petitioner was that she could be absorbed and appointed as Stenographer Grade-III in the Court of Learned VI Additonal District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati, even though she did not possess the qualification of English Shorthand in Higher Grade. She makes this submission on the ground that the proviso to Annexure to Rule 8, as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 08.08.2013, permitted filling up of the vacancies even with candidates possessing English Shorthand Lower Grade, if a candidate with English Shorthand Higher Grade was not available. 3. It is a case of the petitioner that despite this Statutory Rule, her application was rejected, by the 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 03.03.2021 in Roc.No.284-1/E1/2019. 4. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it was stated that the application of the petitioner was being rejected on the ground that the petitioner possesses only English Shorthand (Lower Grade) qualification. 5. The 3rd respondent has also filed a separate counter affidvit, stating that the application of the petitioner could not be considered as the work ethic of the petitioner was not proper and that she was not obedient, honest or punctual. Apart from this, it is also stated that the petitioner was habituated to speak in a humiliating manner to the staff and Judicial Officers. 6. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3, on instructions, submits that the post is not vacant any 3 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.8671 of 2021 more and has been filled up in the year 2022. He would also point out that there was no interim direction of this Court to keep the said post vacant. 7. On the question of eligibility of the petitioner, it is clear that the proviso to the table in the Annexure, attached to Rule 8, stipulates that a person possessing English Shorthand (Lower Grade) is also eligible and entitled for being appointed as Stenographer Grade III, if no other person possessing English Shorthand (Higher Grade) was available. In the present case, it is the admitted case, on both sides, that no person was available when the application of the petitioner was considered. In such circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Stenographer Grade III. 8. The 3rd respondent has raised issues about her work ethic and her absorption not being considered in this behalf, as being a ground, is not being considerd by this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs The Chief Election Commissioner1, had held that judicial review cannot be restricted to the grounds set out in the impugned order and additional grounds or reasons, placed before the Court, by way of an affidavit, cannot be looked into. We, therefore, refrain from going into this question. In any event, even if such allegation is true, the same can be dealt with, in accordance with the disciplinary rules available to the 3rd respondent. 1 1978 AIR 851: 1978 (1) SCC 405 4 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.8671 of 2021 9. The learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that the post, to which the petitioner had applied, had been filled up in the general recruitment in the year 2022. We are of the opinion that the said development cannot deny the petitioner from her rightful due. In such circumstances, there shall be a direction to appoint the petitioner to the post of Stenographer Grade III, either in Chittoor or Tirupati, in any of the Courts established there and where vacancy is available. 10. In the event of vacancy available at present, the appointment process shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of vacancy not being available, the petitioner shall be accomodated in any vacancy that arises hereafter. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________ Dr. K MANMADHA RAO, J Date: 24.03.2025 MJA 5 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.8671 of 2021 134 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE Dr. K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No: 8671 of 2021 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 24.03.2025 MJA