APHC010306312020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 20289/2020 Between: 1. SMT.K.SIRISHA, D/O. LATE K.PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. PRESENTLY WORKING AS PLANTATION MANAGER, DWMA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. R/O. D.NO.18-34-27, 2ND LANE, SANGADIGUNTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE AND SERICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE AND SERICULTURE, TTPC BUILDING, OLD MARKET YARD, CHUTTUGUNTA, GUNTUR , GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 1ST FLOOR, 29-6-6/1, NAKKALA ROAD, SURYARAOPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tobe pleased to issue Writ, order or orders specially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in Lr.No.Estt.I(1) 20/2016, dated 14-10-2020 issued by the rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violatives of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and issue consequential direction directing the 2 rd respondent to forthwith issue appointment order as Horticulture Officer duly award marks 12 for experience with all consequential benefits of arrears of salary, seniority etc., IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 be prayed to suspend the operation of the proceedings in Lr.No.Estt.I(1) 20/2016, dated 14-10-2020 issued by the 2nd respondent with a direction to award marks for counting of marks 12 for experience and issue appointment order as Horticulture Officer, pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO MODUKURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR AGRICULTURE 3. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri Modukuri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development; learned Government Pleader for Agriculture and learned Government Pleader for Services II. 2. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment as Horticulture Officer, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition. 3. It is contended that the petitioner is a graduate in B.Sc. (Horticulture). She was appointed as an Engineering Consultant at 3 PD, DWMA, under the control of the 3rd respondent, and had worked in that capacity for a period of three years. Subsequently, she was posted as Plantation Manager in the same Horticulture Department. The petitioner thereafter applied for the post of Horticulture Officer pursuant to a recruitment notification dated 01.09.2016. As per the notification, the mode of selection is based on a weightage of marks, with 75 marks for merit in graduation, 10 marks for seniority, and 15 marks for service experience. A provisional selection list was published, inviting objections. In the provisional selection, the petitioner was awarded marks for merit in educational qualification of graduation and seniority in service; however, no marks were awarded to the experience of the petitioner as an Engineering Consultant in the 3rd respondent office. The petitioner contends that if such marks were considered, the petitioner would have been at Sl. No.7 in the merit list. The petitioner submitted his objections to the same. However, the same were not considered. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No.18703 of 2019, and the same is pending for consideration. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent issued a revised merit list and rejected the petitioner's candidacy for the post of Horticulture Officer. The petitioner contends that the experience as an Engineering Consultant in the Horticulture Department should be taken into consideration for awarding service weightage marks. Similarly, situated persons were considered for appointment. 4 4. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, stating that the petitioner's claim that similarly situated persons were considered for promotion is incorrect, as the said individuals have held positions such as Plantation Manager, Project Officer, and IWMP watersheds related to horticulture. The distinction was sought to be made, stating that the persons placed in the revised merit list at Sl. No. 4, 6, 9, and 23 have worked in the field of horticulture, whereas the petitioner had worked as an Engineering Consultant. The job chart of an Engineering Consultant does not include activities related to horticulture. The current experience of the petitioner as Plantation Manager as on the relevant date was less than a year, therefore, the same was not considered. 5. The respondents have further stated that in compliance with the directions of this Court dated 24.09.2019, speaking order was passed stating that as per the job chart of Engineering Consultant communicated by the PR&RD Department, the service rendered as Engineering Consultant cannot be taken into account as the work experience does not include Horticulture related activities. 6. Considered the rival submissions. 7. The job chart of Engineering consultant (EC) includes “preparation of estimates, grounding of works, check measurements of Plantation and Horticulture Works”. She has also stated that she was involved in horticultural activities avenue plantations land development activities with 5 horticulture plantations Mahatma Gandhi Vana Nurseries Development (MGVN) etc. 8. The petitioner is a graduate in Horticulture, was appointed as an engineering consultant under MGNREGS, in Rural development department. Her Job Chart includes the duties of preparations of estimates grounding of works, check measurement of plantation and horticulture works. The relevant clause of the notification dealing with the mode of selection reads as follows: “There will be no test or interview for selection of the candidates. The Selection of candidate shall be as per merit, based on the aggregate marks computed for 100 marks, i.e., up to a maximum of 75 for the OGPA/ Traditional % of marks secured by them in their B.Sc. (Horti.) or M.Sc. (Agri.) Horticulture or B.Sc. (Agri.) (only in case of SC/STs), plus marks for seniority from the date of passing of the said qualifying examination @ One Mark per year for each completed year up to a maximum of 10 Marks, plus marks for experience if any, as on 01.09.2016 @ 4 marks per year subject to maximum of 15 marks for the satisfactory service rendered in the Department of Horticulture as Horticultural Officer/ Horticultural Consultant and B.Sc (Horticulture) Graduates worked/working in the field of Horticulture in any of the Government Department/Agencies, such as Rural Development Department, ATMA. APMIP (OFWM) on outsourcing/contract basis provided if they full fill other conditions The service rendered on contract/ outsourcing in different spells shall be computed for arriving at the total period of experience in completed years and any part thereof.” 9. The above clause indicates that there is no written test or interview for the selection of the candidates. The selection of the candidates 6 is based on the aggregate marks computed for 100; the breakup of the same is as follows: (a) 75 marks for the OGPA/Traditional % marks secured by them in their Bsc.(Horti), or MSc.(Agri) Horticulture or BSc( Agri) = 75 (b) And Marks for Seniority from the date of passing of the qualifying examination at the rate of 1(one) mark per year for each of the completed years, maximum up to 10 marks = 10 (c ) 4 Marks per year, subject to a maximum of 15 marks for satisfactory service rendered in the department of Horticulture as Horticultural Officer/Horticultural consultant and Bsc. (Horti) graduates working in the field of horticulture in any department/agency, such as Rural Development, etc. = 15. 10. A perusal of the same, coupled with the job chart of the petitioner, reflects that the petitioner is a graduate in BSc (Hort), and her experiences, include “preparation of estimates, grounding of works, check measurements of Plantation and Horticulture Works”, which cannot be said to be not in the field of horticulture. In view of the same this court is of the view that the respondents are not correct in saying that the petitioner is not entitled to award of weightage of marks. 11. The impugned order does not refer to and consider the nature of duties undertaken by the petitioner vis-à-vis, the job chart, particularly „Clause 3‟ of Job Chart, which reads as follows: 7 “Job Chart of Engineering Consultant (EC):- 1. xxxx 2. xxxx 3. Preparation of estimates, grounding of works, check measurement of plantation and horticulture works.” 12. The 2nd respondent merely observed that the duties of the petitioner do not relate to horticulture work. 13. Having regard to the above, the matter requires consideration by the respondents. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 14.10.2020 are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for passing appropriate orders afresh, by awarding weightage marks for her service experience, giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:30.01.2026 ANI/MVK 8 187 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.20289 of 2020 Date:30.01.2026 ANI/MVK 9