fy IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMAR THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION (AT) NO: 1576 OF 2021 It Between: Kadagala Simhagiri, S/o Appalakonda, Aged about 39 Unen^loyee, R/o D.No.4-168, VisaKhapatnam District. years, Vidyanagar, Gopalapatnam, ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary TR AND ^ Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 522001. 2. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Chairman Buildings, M.G. Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District oZi001. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to declare the action of the 2 may nd respondent herein in conducting oral interview held on 30.8.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated by element of predetermination and biased and consequently declare that the post of Asst. Motor Vehicle and by further declaring illegal, arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. applicant is entitled to be selected for the Inspector in pursuant to notification No.45/2008 that the impugned action is lA NO: 1 OF 2071 Between: The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Rep by its Chairman iToor Vijayawada^ Krishna District ...Applicant/(Respondent-2 in O.A) AND 1. Kadagala Simhagiri, S/o Appalakonda, Agl^ about 39 years D.No.4-168, Vidyanagar, Gopalapatnam Visakhapatnam District. / a . h ...Respondent/(Applicant in O.A) Rep. by its Principal Secretary, TR AND B Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 522001. ...Respondent/Respondent Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the Interim orders passed in O.A.No.423 of 2018, dated 7-3-2018. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SATYANARAYANA FOR SRI K. SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES - II Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. VENKATA NAGA RAJU SC for APPSC The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010457992021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION (AT) NO: 1576/2021 Between: 1.KADAGALA SIMHAGIRI, S/0 APPALAKONDA, AGED ABOUT 39 R/0 D.NO.4-168, VIDYANAGAR, YEARS, UNEMPLOYEE GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDRHA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TR AND B DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522001. 2.THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 521001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR SERVICES II 2. SC FOR APPSC The Court made the following: 2 . ^ ORDER: Heard Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K. Srinivasa Prasad, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri N. Rupeswar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Venkata Naga Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the APPSC and Sri T. Bheemanna, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent No.1. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: 2. “The applicant prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the action of the 2'’'^ respondent herein in conducting oral interview held on 30.8.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated by element of predetermination and biased and consequently declare that the applicant is entitled to be selected for the post of Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector in pursuant to notification No.45/2008 and by further declaring that the impugned action is illegal, arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem think fit and proper.” At the outset, it must be stated that this Writ Petition was originally filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal bearing O.A.No.423 of 2018. As the case was transferred to this Court, the present Writ Petition number has been assigned bearing W.P.(AT).No.1576 of 2021. 3. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner: The facts, as projected by the learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner are that the Respondent No.2 herein has issued Notification No.45/2008 for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. Number of vacancies advertised were 218 in number and the applicants are required to be between ages of 21 to 39 as on 01.07.2008. Initially, a controversy arose as regards the cut-off date in regard to the age of the Applicant. Several persons were aggrieved and approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing a batch of OAs bearing O.A.No.6598 of 2010 and batch. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, by Order dated 30.09.2011, 4. 3 was pleased to dismiss the O.As bearing O.A.No.6598 of 2010 and batch. When the Order of the-Administrative Tribunal dated 30.09.2011 came to be challenged before this Court in W.P.No.30167 of 2011 and batch, this Hon’ble Court vide Order dated 06.07.2012 was pleased to set-aside the Judgment of the Hon’ble Tribunal and had declared that 13.04.2009 shall be recorded as cut-off date instead of 01.07.2008. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (Respondent No.2) approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the Order of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.30167 of 2011 and batch dated 06.07.2012. - . vss ' It is submitted that, though, initially the impugned Order therein in SLP (Civil) Nos.22972-22985/2012 was stayed, thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the Final Order on 29.11.2016 dismissing the SLP filed by Respondent No.2. It is stated in the Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Order passed by the High Court dated 06.07.2012 shall apply to 16 vacancies in question. It is also submitted that the present Writ Petitioner was not a party in the batch of cases filed before the Tribunal in O.A.No.6598 of 2010 and batch. Therefore, the Petitioner herein filed W.P.No.22101 of 2012 and obtained leave of this Court to question the Judgment of the Hon’ble 5. Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal that is passed in the batch of O.A.Nos.6598 of 2010 and batch dated 13.04.2009. By Order dated 25.01.2017, this Hon’ble Court had directed the Respondent No.2 to consider the candidature of the Applicant herein in terms of the Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.11.2016 in SLP (Civil).Nos.22972- 22985/2012. 6. It is submitted that by the time the Writ Petitioner secured the Order from this Court on 25.01.2017, the candidates were already appointed by conducting test and interviews etc., by virtue of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.11.2016. Therefore, it is submitted that separate interview was required to be held for the Writ Petitioner along with few other candidates who were left over. 4 It is submitted that the Writ Petitioner belongs to BC-A Category und&r Zone-1. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Respondent No.2 had held oral interviews on 30.08.2017 and that the Writ Petitioner was not selected to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Respondents deliberately showed prejudice against the Writ Petitioner by granting less marks in the interview in order to enable some other candidates to secure the job. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the information furnished by the Respondent No.2 to the Writ Petitioner under the Right to Information Act. The said document would indicate that the Petitioner (Hail Ticket No.45020120) secured 88 marks in Paper-1 (out of 150) and 104 marks in Paper-11 (out of 150) and secured 3 marks in the interview (out of 30 marks). The total marks secured by the Writ Petitioner are 195 out of 300. The said Proceeding issued by the Respondent No.2 under the Right to Information Act would also disclose the fact that the last selected candidate secured 202 marks in BC-A Category (Zone-1). 7. \ The prayer in the present Writ Petition would indicate that the Respondent No.2 has showed discrimination with an element of predetermination and bias against the Writ Petitioner. 8. Submissions of the Respondent No.2: 9. The Respondent No.2 has filed Counter Affidavit along with several material documents. Sri N. Rupeswar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.Venkata Naga Raju, learned Standing Counsel for APPSC, has taken this Court through the contents of the Counter Affidavit and the material documents filed along with the Counter Affidavit, averments made in the Writ Petition are far from truth. He would submit that the Writ Petitioner has attributed bias and mala tides. Learned Counsel would submit that the Petitioner, under the BC-A Category of Zone-1, secured only 195 marks whereas the last selected candidate under the BC-A Category in Zone-1 secured 202 marks. He would submit that merely because the Writ It is submitted that the 5 Petitioner secured 10 marks more than successful candidate in the Written Examination; H does not mean that the Writ Petitioner had performed better than the selected candidate in the interview. He would submit that 30 marks are earmarked for the interview and the Writ Petitioner secured only 3 marks whereas the last successful candidate secured about 20 marks in the interview. Learned Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the Petitioner has miserably failed to prove that the Respondent No.2 has discriminated the Petitioner due to predetermination and bias. He would submit that merely because the Petitioner has secured only 3 marks in. the interview, he had attributed motives of discrimination, predetermination and bias against the Petitioner; whereas, the Petitioner has failed to prove any such bias. It is further submitted that the low marks which are secured by the Writ Petitioner alone cannot be an indicator to draw any adverse inference against the Respondent that it had acted with the discrimination and bias. 10. 11. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2. This Court has also considered the material documents which are filed by the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.2. The Writ Petitioner secured the information under the Right to Information Act. The information shown under the Right to Information Act at page 11 indicates that the Petitioner secured 195 marks out of 300 marks whereas, the last selected candidate under the BC-A Category (Zone-1) secured 202 marks. The other document at page 12 of the Writ Petition concerns another candidate who had been selected in Zone-V in a Non-local vacancy from Zone-1 under BC-A Category also secured 201 marks. The facts relating to said candidate bearing Registration No.45010348 would indicate that he has secured 91 marks in Paper-1 (out of 150 marks) and 91 marks in Paper-ll (out of 150 marks). It also shows that the said candidate secured 19 marks in the interview, totalling to 201 marks. 6 In SMS. Marwari Hospital Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. : 20f 5 see Online eal 348, the full Bench of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held in para 19 as under: 12. “19. Ultimately the entire issue boils down to the question of prejudice. If the delinquent employee has suffered anyprejudice by reason of the Presenting Officer acting as a witness on behalf of the management, the enquiry proceeding will possibly be held to be vitiated. The prejudice must be real prejudice as opposed to formal prejudice, affecting some substantial legal right of the employee. Naturally, the burden is on the employee to establish such prejudice.” In State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. Akhilesh Jha and Another ; (2021) 12 SCC 460, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 15 as under: 13. “15. The line of reasoning which weighed with the Tribunal is plainly erroneous. The Tribunal would have been justified in directing the expeditious conclusion of the enquiry, but instead, it proceeded to quash the enquiry in its entirety. This, in our view, was clearly impermissible. Every delay in conducting a disciplinary enquiry does not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being vitiated. Whether prejudice is caused to the officer who is being enquired into is a matter which has to be decided on the basis of the circumstances of each case. Prejudice must be demonstrated to have been caused and cannot be a matter of surmise. Apart from submitting that the first respondent was unable to proceed on deputation or to seek promotion, there is no basis on which it could be concluded that his right to defend himself stands prejudicially affected by a delay of two years in concluding the enquiry. The High Court, therefore, in our view, has clearly failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by simply affirming the judgment of the Tribunal. The judgment of the Tribunal suffered from basic errors which go to the root of the matter and which have been ignored both by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court.” In K. Swarna Kumari, Subordinate Judge (eompulsorily Retired) Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh : 2006 SCC Online AP 97, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in para 14 as under: 14. 7 It is well settled law that the party, who alleges prejudice, must show that real prejudice has been caused to him/her and that should be pleaded and demonstrated." 14. The abovementioned decisions would clearly indicate that the burden to establish mala tides lies on the party who is alleging it and that such mala tides or prejudices must be demonstrated to have been caused and cannot be a matter of surmise or conjuncture. It is a settled law that the burden lies heavily on the person who alleges discrimination or bias. Such person is required to show higher degree of proof to establish that the Official Respondents are guilty of discrimination or bias. In the present case, the Writ Petitioner has merely alleged bias basing on the marks secured in the interview but has not been able to place on record any material to show that the Respondent No.2 has acted with bias. This Court has already seen that a candidate with Hall Ticket No.45010079 belonging to BC-A Category under Zone-1, secured 202 marks and another candidate with Hall Ticket No.45010348 secured 201 marks and he was selected for Zone-V under Non-local vacancy while the said candidate belongs to BC-A from Zone-1. This Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petitioner has miserably failed to prove that there is any bias or predetermination in awarding 3 marks in the interview to the Writ Petitioner that showed favouritism in favour of the other candidates (bearing Hall Ticket Nos.45010079 and 45010348). In the above premise, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to 15. 16. 17. costs. 18. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to Sri K Srinivasa Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri V. Venkata Naga Raju, SC for APPSC [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Services - II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED.05/06/2025 ORDER WP(AT).No.1576 of 2021 DISMISSING THE WP(AT) WITHOUT COSTS