ORDER
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. The petitioner is a casual labourer working under the 2nd respondent officer. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the 2nd respondent in appointing the 3rd respondent as Attender vide his proceedings No. J403/86 dated 30-7-1986 ignoring the seniority of the petitioner as illegal and to grant the consequential reliefs.
2. The petitioner averments disclose that the petitioner joined the services of the 1st respondent as a casual labourer and reported for duty under the 2nd respondent on 9-6-1966 and since then she had been continuously working as a casual labourer. The 3rd respondent also joined the services of the 1st respondent and she was working under the 2nd respondent from 14-7-1966. The 2nd respondent has prepared a seniority list of casual labourers wherein there petitioner is given Rank No. 17 whereas the 3rd respondent is given Rank No. 19. This is an admitted position as could be seen from the averments made in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents. When the petitioner and the 3rd respondent joined the services of the respondents, there were no cadre and recruitment rules governing the appointments of the personnel to the Group D services. The 1st respondent for the first time framed the regulations called the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Last Grade Service Regulations, 1982, which regulations hereinafter are shortly referred to as 'the Regulations', in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Sub-regulation (1) of Regulate 7 of Regulations reads thus :
'7(1) No person shall be eligible for appointment in this service other than to Group-V unless he can read and write any of the regional languages :
Provided that in the case of an incumbent who is already working as permanent Mazdoor or Casual Labourer on the date of commencement of these regulation, the qualification shall not be insisted for the purpose of his appointment to posts in Group-II or Group-III provided that he has experience, at least of two years in the work connected with the post in Group-II or Group-III as the case may be.
Provided further that in the case of an incumbent who is already working as Permanent Mazdoor or Casual; Labourer on the date of commencement of these Regulations, the qualifications shall not be insisted for the purpose of his appointment to the posts in Group-I, except Attender, Messenger Boy, Lab Boys, provided that he/she has experience of at least two years as Casual Labourer and can sign his/her name.'
A combined reading so sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 7 of the Regulations and the provisions of the second proviso makes it quite clear that a casual labourer who had put in at lest two years of service in the establishment of the 1st and 2nd respondent is entitled to be considered for the post in Group-I, provided the applicant can sign his of her name as the case may be. The requirement of reading and writing, in any of the regional languages is dispensed with by the second proviso to Regulation 7(1). Admittedly, the petitioner has been consciously working as a casual labourer in the establishment of the 2nd respondent from 9-6-1966. Therefore, the exemption provided under the second proviso to sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 7 attracts. If that is kept in mind, the 2nd respondent ought to have considered the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Attender in Group I services without insisting that the petitioner should read and write in any of the regional languages. There is no dispute that the petitioner can sign her named. The resultant position is that the petitioner fulfils the prescribed qualification under the Regulations.
3. From a reading of the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it seems that the petitioner was denied appointment solely on the ground that in a test conducted by it to assess whether the applicant could read and write in any of the regional languages, the 3rd respondent secured higher marks than the one secured by the petitioner and that is why the 2nd respondent appointed the 3rd respondent as Attender in Group-I services while denying the appointment to the petitioner. The action of the 2nd respondent in denying the appointment of the petitioner as Attender in Group-I services is clearly in violation of the Regulation 7(1) of the Regulations and is against the principle of natural justice and cannot be sustained. Although the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Attender in Group-I services as illegal, the Court does not think it just and proper at this distance of time to discharge the 3rd respondent from her post. Ends of Justice will be met by directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to any of the posts which are included in Group-I services under the Regulations. At this stage, it is relevant to note that normally this Court does not direct the respondents to make appointments or to promote the petitioners. The normal practice is to direct the concerned respondents to consider the candidature of the successful petitioners for a post or for a promotion. Here is a case where there is absolutely no controversy or dispute as regards the basic facts. Even according to the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner is senior to the 3rd respondent and she has been denied appointment solely on the ground that in a test conducted by them, she secured lesser marks than the one secured by the 3rd respondent and that is totally an irrelevant consideration. On the part of the respondents 1 and 2 to deny the appointment to the petitioner. Since there is no dispute or controversy over these facts, there is nothing wrong in directing the respondents 1 and to appoint the petitioner to any of the posts which are included in Group-I services under the Regulations.
4. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of Mandamus shall be issued to the respondents 1 and 2 appoint the petitioner to any of the posts in Group-I services at least with effect from the date on which the 3rd respondent was appointed to the Group-I services under the Regulation. The appointment of the 3rd respondent as Attender is not disturbed. No costs.
5. This Mandamus shall be complied with by the respondents withing a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order Further, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to the wages and allowances admissible to the post in Group-I services for the period between 30-7-1986 till she is appointed to any of the posts in Group-I Services as per the directions and for all other purposes, her services from 30-7-1986 should be taken into account.