ORDER
1. Writ Petitions No.10037 of 1993, 4464 of 1994 and 10822 of 1994 relate to filling up the vacancy of Deputy Registrar earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidate pursuant to the notification given by the respondent-University on 9-9-1991. While Writ Petition No. 10037 of 1993 was filed by Mr. Rangappa, seeking a direction to the respondent University to appoint him as Deputy Registrar, WP No.4464 of 1994 was filed by Mr. Krishnam Raju, 2nd respondent in the above writ petition, questioning the very process of selection while Smt. Rajya Lakshmi filed Writ Petition No. 10822 of 1994 seeking a direction to appoint her as Deputy Registrar.
2. At the outset, I would like to refer the oft quoted maxim 'if you want to kill a dog, call it mad and shoot at it'. The case on hand is of that nature. This is neither a solitary instance nor it has happened in this University for the first time. It is a universal feature and no institution is an exception to this phenomena. As long as Merit of an individual has to be judged on the subjective satisfaction of the person sitting in the chair, we cannot expect a better deal to the persons who cannot pull the strings of the administration.
3. The prevailing situation in the country was beautifully summed up by Justice K. Ramaswamy as he then was in Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress & others, : (1991)ILLJ395SC while considering the vires of Regulation 9(b) of Delhi Transport Corporation which confers powers on the authority to terminate the services of a permanent and confirmed employee by issuing a notice without assigning any reason in the order and without giving any opportunity to hear the employee before passing the impugned order, considered the effect of termination of service and held as hereundcr:
'Law is a social engineering to remove the existing imbalance and to further the progress serving the needs of the Socialist Democratic Bharat under rule of law. The prevailing social conditions and actualities of life are to be taken into account to adjudging whether the impugned legislation would subserve the purpose of the society. The arbitrary unbridled and naked power of wide discretion to dismiss a permanent employee without any guidelines or procedure would tend to defeat the constitutional purpose of equality and allied purposes referred to above. Courts would take note of actualities of life that persons actuated to corrupt practices are capable, to maneuver with higher echelons in diverse ways and also camouflage their activities by becoming sycophants or chromes to the superior officers. Sincere, honest and devoted subordinate officers (are) unlikely to lick the boots of the corrupt superior officer. They develop a sense of self pride of their honesty integrity and apathy and inertia towards the corrupt and tend to undermine or show signs of disrespect or disregard towards them. Thereby, they not only become inconvenient to the corrupt officer but also stand an impediment to the on-going smooth siphony of corruption at a grave risk to their prospects in career or even to their tenure of office. The term efficiency is an elusive and relative one to the adept capable to be applied in diverse circumstances. If a superior officer develops likes towards sycophant, though corrupt, he would tolerate him and found him to be efficient and pay encomiums and corruption in such cases stand no impediment. When he finds a sincere, devoted and honest officer to be inconvenient, it is easy to cast him/her off by writing confidential with delightfully vague language imputing to be 'not up to the mark' 'wanting public relations' etc. Yet times they may be termed to be 'Security risk' (to their activities). Thus they spoil the career of the honest, sincere and devoted officers. Instances either wayare gallore in this regard. Therefore, one would be circumspect pragmatic and realistic to these actualities of life while angulating constitutional validity of wide arbitrary, uncanalised and unbridled discretionary power of dismissal vested in an appropriate authority either by a statute or a statutory rule. Vesting arbitrary power would be a feeding ground for nepotism and insolence; instead of subserving the constitutional purpose, it would defeat the very object, in particular, when the tribe of officers of honesty, integrity and devotion are struggling under dispondence to continue to maintain honesty, integrity and devotion to the duty, in particular, when moral values and ethical standards are fast corroding in all walks of life including public services as well ..... the Constitutionassures dignity of the individual and right to livelihood the the exercise of the power by the executive should be cushioned with adequate safeguards for the rights of the employees against any arbitrary and capricious use of those powers.'
4. In this case, the Board of Management (for short 'the Board') of the respondent University tries to nullify the constitutional mandate, wherein reservations are provided for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens for their social and economic empowerment and advancement, equality of status and dignity of person in matters of education and employment as enshrined under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 335 of the Constitution of India, in exercise of its powers under Clausc-7 para-5 of Statute of the University dealing with the powers of the Board.
5. Initially the University seemed to have given an advertisement to fill up the post of Deputy Registrar by direct recruitment earmarked for a Scheduled Caste candidate on 9-10-1990. As per the said notification apart from other qualifications one must have 10 years of teaching or administrative experience, while the statute prescribes only 5 years.
6. Persuant to the said notification, the University seemed to have received 4 applications. Perhaps the University having felt that candidates with qualifications prescribed have not applied renotified the vacancy on 9-9-1991, whereunder the experience was reduced to 5 years as stipulated in the statute. Pursuant to the said notification 9 candidates applied for the post. The University authorities having considered the qualifications of the petitioner sent a call letter on 9-4-1992 directing him to appear for written examination and interview on 2-5-1992 along with other candidates. On that day a Selection Committee constituted for the purpose conducted both written and viva voce test for all the candidates and selected the petitioner for the said post. As per the counter-affidavit dated 20th February, 1994 filed in WPMP No.445 of 1994 and a register claiming to be the Minutes Book of the Board, the Board seemed to have met on 14-5-1992 and rejected the recommendation of the Selection Committee. But, from the records produced before the Court, it is seen that the resolution of the Board was recorded on a loose sheet and the Registrar signed the resolution on 15-5-1992. From this sheet it is difficult to say whether the resolution was adopted by the Board or not. Be that as it may, the resolution as found on the loose sheet is extracted hereunder which throws light on the understanding of the members of the Board:
'The Board of Management has noted that the position of a Deputy Registrar is a senior position in the University. The Bio-data of the candidate provisionally recommended and the previous experience put in by him fall short of the requirements of the position. Similarly, none of the other candidates are also found suitable by the Selection Committee. As such the Board of Management is of view that the post be renotified. The experience to be notified by the candidate be made more explicit so as to lake into reckoning 'experience' in administrative positioncommensurate with the responsibilities of the present office.'
7. This Court tried to find out the intention of the Board behind the idea of prescribing 10 years of administrative experience in its 1st notification dated 9-10-90, while the statute prescribed only 5 years of administrative experience for appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar. Likewise, the Court also insisted the Counsel to explain the idea behind the decision now taken for renotifying the vacancy by prescribing that one must possess administrative experience commensurate with the responsibilities of the office though there is nothing to that effect in the statute and what the Board actually meant for, the Counsel has no answer.
8. Further the members of the Board may not be knowing about the existence of Article 335 of the Constitution of India, which envisages preferential treatment to the members of SCs, STs. while making appointments to service and posts consistent with the management of an efficient administralion. The very fact that a Selection Committee consisting of Vice-Chancellor and two experienced persons constituted by the Board found the petitioner suitable for appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar indicates that nothing adverse can be pointed out against the petitioner for rejecting his claim for appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar. In fact, the resolution of the Board does not throw any light for condemning the petitioner for appointment. On the other hand the very statement in the resolution, the Bio-data of the candidate provisionally recommended and the previous experience put in by him falls short of the requirements of the post'. indicates non-application of mind by the Board as the University itself sent a call letter to the petitioner only after satisfying itself that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications mentioned in the notification,
9. It is useful to refer to the judgment of Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, as he then wasin A.P. BC SC and ST Advocate Assn v. State Government, 1984 (1) APLJ 51 (SN). Adverting to a situation of almost identical nature his Lordship gave a direction to the Government to appoint one Mr. B. Venkat Rao as Asst. Government Pleader in SC quota in the following terms:
'Out of the 39 names forwarded by the learned Advocate-General there are two Scheduled Caste candidates, and the learned Advocate-General has mentioned that all the 39 Advocates mentioned by him are practising Advocates and that, 'having regard to their performance and character, any one in the panel of 39 names is as good as any one else. They have the required standing at the Bar...' The two candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes in this list, are Sri E. Dharma Rao, who was completing five years of standing on 2-11-1983, and Sri R. Venkata Rao who has more than five years standing. The Government however has appointed only Sri E. Dlwrma Rao, but not Sri R. Venkata Rao. I am unable to see the reason behind not appointing Sri R. Venkata Rao, more particularly when the representation of Scheduled Castes is already less than the desired. If a Scheduled Castes candidate with equal capabilities is available, he ought to have been appointed. The file does not disclose either the reasons for appointing the persons appointed, or not appointing the persons not appointed. In this connection, I may recall the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 44 of the decision in Thomas's case (supra) It was observed:
'Our Constitution aims at equality of status and opportunity for all citizens including those who are socially, economically and educationally backward. The claims of members of Backward Classes require adequate representation in legislative and executive bodies. If members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes who are said by this Court to be Backward Classes, can maintain minimum necessary requirementof administrative efficiency, not only representation but also preference may be given to them to enforce equality and to eliminate inequality.'
If so, it was obligatory upon the Government to appoint Sri R. Venkata Rao as well.
10. Pursuant to the decision of the Board, the Registrar by his proceedings dated 4-9-1992 informed the petitioner that he fell short of the requirement for the post of Deputy Registrar, hence, he was not considered for the post of Dy. Registrar. Having received such a communication from the Registrar, the petitioner seemed to have submitted a representation to consider his case for appointment to the post of Asst, Registrar, if he is found suitable for the same. It is interesting to note in this application his statement saying that he will not stake his claim for the post of Dy. Registrar for which he has applied and attended the interview. According to the petitioner he has given the said representation as per the instructions of the Registrar, while the respondent denied the same. Be that as it may, I need not embark upon an enquiry whether the petitioner has given the representation on his own volition or at the instance of the Registrar. But, the statement referred above definitely casts a doubt on giving such representation by the petitioner on his own as he is not aware of his selection by the Committee. Be that as it may, the said statement of the petitioner deserves to be ignored as the principle of Estoppel cannot be pressed into service against the enforcement of fundamental rights. On the basis of the said letter in proceedings dated 3-7-1992, he was appointed as Asst. Registrar on regular basis and he was also placed on probation. The petitioner reported to duty on 6-7-1992. After some time, the 2nd respondent in this writ petition and petitioner in Writ Petition No.4464 of 1994 was promoted as Asst. Registrar and as per the note circulated to the Board that the said post was shown as Scheduled Caste backlog post, after the said promotion while the petitioner was shown against the existing vacancy in DeputyRegistrar Post. Having joined the service of the respondent-University perhaps the petitioner came to know of the things i.e., how injustice was done to him and the petitioner filed the present writ petition i.e., Writ Petition No. 10037 of 1993 seeking a direction to the respondent-University to appoint him as Dy. Registrar as per notification dated 9-9-1991. In this writ petition, Mr. Krishnam Raju was shown as 2nd respondent under a mistaken impression that he has occupied the post of Asst. Registrar in a backlog post earmarked for SC candidate. Subsequently, a member of All India SC and ST Commission which is a Statutory Commission constituted under Article 338 of the Constitution of India, visited the respondent-University and found that the University did not appoint the petitioner as Dy. Registrar though he fulfilled all the qualifications prescribed for the post. On that he gave a direction to the University authorities to rectify the injustice. But, the University seemed to have taken no action on this direction. Mr. Krishnam Raju, who faught for his appointment as Superintendent in the respondent-University filed Writ Petition No.4464 of 1994 as a counter blast questioning the very process of selection and the appointment of the petitioner as Asst. Registrar. Some time thereafter one Ms. G.V. Rajya Lakshmi who is working as Lecturer in Zoology in Government College, Kurnool District and who appeared for the interview along with the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No.10822 of 1994 questioning the appointment of the petitioner as Asst. Registrar and sought for a direction to fill up the post of Dy. Registrar pursuant to the selections that have taken place on 2-5-1992.
11. At that stage, the local SCs Organisation seemed to have organised'Dharna' and 'protest rallys' against the vindictive attitude of the management of the respondent-University against the SCs. To come out of the situation the Vice-Chancellor in her proceedings dated 27-7-1994 appointed the petitioner as Deputy Registrar and placed him on probation, with effect from 6-7-1992subject to result of the three writ petitions referred above. It is also not in dispute that except giving appointment as Asst. Registrar on regular basis neither his services in that cadre were regularised nor annual increments due to him were released though the same is not under challenge before any Forum. Only at the threat of self-immolation by the petitioner, the University seemed to have started releasing annual increments from 19-5-1994 without reference to the increments that fell due during the previous years. Likewise though the petitioner was given appointment as Dy. Registrar on 6-7-1992 neither the salary nor the perks attached to the post have been extended to the petitioner all these years.
12. The One Man Commission headed by Justice Rama Rao, constituted by the Government under G.O.Rt.No.229, dated 22-6-1995 to enquire into irregularities that have taken place in the University, in his report dated 27-3-1996 categorically held that the claim of the petitioner for the post of Deputy Registrar is wholly justified and he is entitled to seniority and arrears of salary as claimed by him,
13. In this factual background let us see whether the action of the Board in refusing to appoint the petitioner as Deputy Registrar is a bona fide one or it amounts to colourable exercise of power and intended to deny the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Registrar.
14. At the outset, I would like to refer to the minutes book of the Board produced in the Court. This register cannot be claimed to be minutes book and it is only an attendance register. Nothing more, nothing less. The book neither reflects the business that is being transacted by the Board from time to time nor it contains the views offered by the members that participated in the meeting apart from not containing any resolution recorded by the Board after discussions. As noticed supra while the Board meeting was held on 14-5-1992, the resolution said to have beenadapted by the Board is found in a bundle of un-numbered loose sheets signed by the Registrar on 15-5-1992. The sorry state of affairs can be further amplified by the fact that the cream of the bureacracy who considered to be more meritorious and efficient attended this meeting i.e., (1) The Vice-Chancellor (2) Mr. M.S. Prasad, IAS who was then the Executive Officer of TTD (3) Mr. R. Ramesh Kumar, 1AS Joint Secretary, Finance Department (4) Mr. V.S. Rama Rao, Joint Secretary Education Department and (5) Mr. B. Konda Reddy, Director of Higher Education.
15. It is interesting to note that these officers do net even know how the minutes book of the Board, the principal Executive Body of the University, a basic register of the University which has to throw light on the decisions taken by the Board from time to time in administering the affairs of the University and which will be of immense use for modification, alteration or amendment of the decision of the Board, if circumstances warrant, on a future occasion to cope up with the changed circumstances (has to be maintained). Reverting back to the issue the Board did not choose to appoint the petitioner as Deputy Registrar for the reasons given in the resolution.
16. The same Board rectified the action of the Vice-Chancellor in appointing the petitioner as Assistant Registrar against Deputy Registrar (SC) category in its meeting held on 3-7-1992. It is also interesting to note the orders of the Vice-Chancellor and the resolution of the Board dated 3-7-1992. The resolution is extracted hereunder :
'Resolved to approve the appointment of Sri C. Rangappa as Asst. Registrar against Deputy Registrar (SC) category and Smt. Ch.Lakshmt Padmavathi as Asst. Controller of Examinations, It is further resolved to approve the payment of pay and allowances to Asst. Controller of Examinations from the sanctioned post of Controller of Examinations.'
17. It is also interesting to note that the statute prescribed 5 years administrative experience for the post of Assistant Registrar as well as Deputy Registrar. In such an event, it is rather difficult to understand the mind of the members of the Board, as nothing could be culled out from the proceedings of the Board either in rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment as Deputy Registrar or appointing him as Asst. Registrar against the Deputy Registrar vacancy, except the explanation offered in the counter, which is extracted hereunder:
'It may be noted that the relevant hieararchy of the posts in the University is as hereunder:
(1) Deputy Registrar,
(2) Assistant Registrar, and
(3) Superintendent
Thus, a jump in a category cannot be envisaged for appointment of the petitioner and his experience in the intermediate post is more vital in the normal discharge of the functions of Deputy Registrar.''
18. This statement runs counter to the qualification prescribed for the post in the Special Rules framed by the Executive Council of the respondent-University under Statute 5(8) of Sri Padmavathi Manila Viswa Vidyalayam Act, 1983 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules'). These rules came into force on 18-3-1986. Rule III reads as under:
'III. Qualifications for direct Recruitment: Category:3 Deputy Registrars/Controller of Examinations.
(i) A First Class or Second Class P.G. Degree of a University in the State or an equivalent Examination.
(ii) Experience in Teaching or Administrative post for a period of 5 years.'
19. From the above rule it is seen what is needed is five years experience either on the teaching side or one the administrativeside, but not on the feeder post i.e., Assistant Registrar, as contended by the respondents. Perhaps the members of the Board did not relish the appointment of the petitioner, who was working as Statistical Assistant in the cadre of the Superintendent, as Deputy Registrar under a mistaken impression that the petitioner is being given promotion by two stages, forgetting the fact that the University gave notification for filling up the post by direct recruitment. When once the post is sought to be filled up by direct recruitment, the only question that lias to be considered by the authorities concerned would be whether the candidate fulfilled the qualifications with regard to education and experience for appointment to the post advertised, but not in a feeder post as was done by the Board in this case.
20. Further, the respondents themselves admitted in para -2 of the affidavit dated 26-8-1997 that the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Deputy Registrar for SC/ST Cell for which appointment is sought to be made, are only to maintain and monitor implementation of reservations in the University for SCs/STs and keep full records for submission to the Commissions that visit the University. This Court is of the firm opinion that this work can be attended by even clerical staff and one need not have that efficiency which is in the minds of the members of the Board. At any rate, the responsibilities attached to the post of Deputy Registrar in this case are nominal, if not nil.
21. Nextly, the Board is not empowered to go beyond the Rules framed by the Executive Council for appointment to various posts in the University. The circumstances enumerated hereunder lead to irresistible conclusion that the members of the Board are determined to convert this post from SC category to open category only with a view to accommodate a person of their choice as Deputy Registrar i.e., (1) giving notification in January, 1990 prescribing ten years experience while under the statutory rules only five years experience is needed;(2) condemning the petitioner by stating that he fell short of the requirements; and (3) taking a decision to renotify the post by making it explicit that the experience reckoned should be in administrative position commensurate with the responsibilities of the present office, without specifying those responsibilities. If such an eventuality takes place, the result is obvious. When the University could not get a suitable candidate for appointment as Deputy Registrar, when the rule simply says five years teaching/administrative experience it is not known how they can get a better qualified candidate for appointment by renotifying the vacancy prescribing higher qualifications. When once these three advertisements are over, they can approach the Government for denotification of the vacancy by stating that no suitable candidate is available.
22. The vindictive attitude of Board can be seen from another angle also. Having considered the application of the petitioner, either given by himself or at the instance of the Registrar, appointed him as Assistant Registrar on regular basis. But, his services in the category of Assistant Registrar arc neither regularised nor the yearly increments arc being released under the pretext of pendency of litigation in this Court, though his appointment as Assistant Registrar is not assailed effectively. On the other hand the Registrar went to the extent of condemning him as unfit to hold even the post of Assistant Registrar in confidential reports. The learned Counsel for the petitioner made a categorical statement across the Bar that the respondent-University allowed annual increments to be drawn by the employees though writ petitions questioning their promotions are pending adjudication in this Court and the same was not denied by the Counsel for the University. At any rate the petitioner is working as Assistant Registrar and till his appointment as Assistant Registrar is set aside by a competent Court, he is entitled to draw the time scale of pay and to have all the perks attached to the post including drawal of increments. But, theBoard, consisting of senior bureaucrats in the cadre of IAS in its wisdom did not choose to release even the increments due to the petitioner from time to time till he has given a threat of self immolation in the year 1995. Even then, they chose to release the annual increments prospectively without reference to earlier increments.
23. Next, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University started arguing across the Bar that the petitioner is an inefficient person and he is not even fit to be appointed as Assistant Registrar and due to that reason they were forced to continue the more meritorious person. Smt. D. Vijaya Kumari, who was brought on deputation as Deputy Registrar and continuing here even after repatriation orders are given by the Government. The University is now taking steps to absorb her in the University service on permanent basis. Her deputation and the action of the respondent-University in trying to absorb her in University service will be dealt with in the connected batch of Writ Petition Nos. 14245 of 96 & 13510 of 96. When such a statement was made by the Counsel I passed the following order on 22-8-1997:
'Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel for the University made statement across the Bar that because of the inefficiency of Mr. Rangappa in discharge of his functions as Deputy Registrar, the University is getting Mr. Vijay Kumar's deputation extended from time to time and now decided for absorption. The Counsel shall substantiate this contention with reference to the files by filing an additional affidavit in this case.'
24. In response to this order, the University filed an affidavit dated 26-8-1997 along with certain confidential reports written by officers who arc more meritorious and efficient according to Board to substantiate the statement made by the learned Counsel. Xerox copies of the confidential reports filed in this Court started from 1994 onwards i.e.,after the Vice-Chancellor was forced to appoint the petitioner as Deputy Registrar in the wake of dhamas and processions organised by the local Scheduled Caste Organisations, These confidential reports reveal nothing but venom against the petitioner. After seeing the confidential reports, I asked the Counsel for the respondents - whether any of these adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner and his explanation was called for. The answer is an emphatic 'no'. The officer who does not know even the elementary duties of supervisory post in dealing with service matters and who docs not even know how to maintain the minutes book of the Board, the principal executive body of the University is considered to be more meritorious because of the extraneous reasons than the real merit. Time and again this Court as well as the Supreme Court held that any adverse remarks passed by the officers superior to an employee have to be communicated and the explanation offered by him has to be considered before confirming the same. Thereafter the employee is entitled to question the same by preferring an appeal to the concerned authority. But, that was not the position in this case.
25. In the affidavit, the respondent-University stated:
'The SC/ST. Cell under the supervision of the petitioner is not discharging its functions as envisaged and is merely acting as a forwarding agent'.
26. To a specific question by the Court-What action the management has taken against him in not discharging his functions in a manner known to law and whether he was charge-sheeted for the lapses that have come to the notice of the management - again the answer is an emphatic 'no'. It is also stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit that the petitioner is lax in discharge of his junctions as evidenced by his frequent absence in the office and produced a note said to have been given by the Vice-Chancellor on 20-7-1996, stating that the petitioner left the office at 3 p.m. withoutpermission. This note was issued after this Court directed the posting of all the cases for final hearing on 30-7-1996, while directing the University to maintain status quo with regard to appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner gave a reply to the abovesaid note stating that the In-charge Registrar came back from Hyderabad and joined duty at about 1 p.m. on 20-7-1996, having failed in her attempts to get the stay vacated in the High Court at Hyderabad WP No. 13510 of 1996 filed by him and she wanted to create some evidence to show that there is dereliction of duty on his part.
27. In Memo dated 14-8-1996, issued by the Registrar Incharge, Smt. D. Vijaya Kumari who is making hectic efforts to get herself absorbed in the University service against the orders of her parent Department, directed the petitioner to explain whether he has informed any of his superiors with regard to his leaving the office at 3 p.m. on 20-7-1996 by stating that his explanation does not specifically speak about the official work on which he had been to Sri Venkateswara University and which officer he met there, on or before 19-8-1996.
28. The petitioner, having given his explanation on the two aspects mentioned in the above memo, categorically stated that he is being discriminated in extending the service benefits due to him in the following words:
'(1) I was appointed as Deputy Registrar on 27-7-1994 with retrospective effect from 6-7-1992.
(2) Since my appointment i.e., 6-7-1992, I was not given UK benefit of emoluments.
(3) My case is not considered for probation, confirmation and related privileges in service.
(4) Being a superior officer of the University, I am not provided with transport, phone, office room with full facilities like toilet etc., whereas other juniors in the University arc extended with better facilities.
(5) Also discrimination is shown only in my case viz., even though cases arc pending in the Hon'ble High Court the University declared probation and also sanctioned increments etc., of other employees.'
29. He complains that the officials of the University resorted to these acts as he happened to be a Scheduled Caste employee. After receipt of the explanation above-mentioned, the University seemed to have closed the issue as per the learned Counsel for the respondent-University.
30. From this it is evident that there is truth in the complaint made by the petitioner. If the respondent-University is not prepared to give him the salary attached to the post of Deputy Registrar, for what fun the Vice-Chancellor gave appointment to the petitioner as Deputy Registrar in 1994 with retrospective effect from 6-7-1992. It is the case of the petitioner that he is neither provided with transport, phone etc., nor a room with attached toilet for his accommodation as Deputy Registrar.
31. Assuming that what all stated by the respondent-University is true, this is the soliatary incident on which the respondent-University tried to build up a case against the petitioner saying that he is frequently absenting from the office, there is dereliction of duty on his part and there is laxity in discharge of his duties. All the above leads to the irresistible conclusion that the Board of Management is not prepared to fill up the post meant for SCs inspite of the constitutional mandate as enshrined in Article 335 of die Constitution of India.
32. Following the ratio decidendi in A.P BC, SC & ST Advocates Association (case) I hold that the action of the Board of Management in not appointing the petitioner as Deputy Registrar, as per the recommendation of the Selection Committee, dated 2-5-1992, pursuant to the notificationdated 9-9-1991, is not only illegal but highly arbitrary and the same amounts to colourable exercise of Power. Further I have no hesitation in holding that the respondent-University having been forced to appoint the petitioner as Deputy Registrar in the wake of dhamas and rallies held by the local unit of A.P. Scheduled Castes Welfare Association, resorted to victimisation in several ways and went even to the extent of condemning him as unsuitable for holding any office and all these actions are declared as mala fide one and intended to spoil the career of the petitioner.
33. Now the Court has to examine whether the petitioner (C. Rangappa) is entitled for appointment as Deputy Registrar in the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner (Dr. G. Krishnam Raju) in Writ Petition No.4464 of 1994, who is arrayed as second respondent in WP No. 10037 of 1993, and the contentions raised by G.B. Rajyalakihmi, in Writ Petition No. 10822 of 1994. who also appeared for the interview along with C. Rangappa.
34. Mr. Bhalt appearing for Raju in all fairness submitted before this Court that as C. Rangappa questioned the appointment of his client as Assistant Registrar by promotion by making all sorts of allegations including the one that he (Krishnam Raju) obtained a false social status certificate, his client was compelled to file W.P.No.4464 of 1994. He states that his client (Krishnam Raju) was appointed by way of promotion and C. Rangappa was appointed by direct recruitment. Hence, there is no conflict of interest between these two and he is not very much harping upon the issues raised in Writ Petition No.4464 of 1994 questioning the process of selection of C. Rangappa.
35. I fully appreciate the submissions made by Mr. Bhatt.
36. The main grievance of the petitioner (C Rangappa) is that G. Krishnam Raju waspromoted as Assistant Registrar in a post earmarked for Scheduled Castes, by obtaining a false social status certificate. Even according to C. Rangappa, the false social status certificate held by G. Krishnam Rajn shows that he belongs to Agnikula Ksliatriya, which comes under the category of Back ward Class-B' and the question of his being appointed against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes, docs not arise. Further, except the note submitted by the office to the Board that the post is earmarked for Scheduled Castes, there is no other evidence to show on what basis the post was earmarked for Scheduled Castes. Further, the Board at its meeting held on 25-6-1991 has taken a decision to fill up all the posts upto the cadre of Assistant Registrar only by promotion without recourse to direct recruitment. That being the factual position, as no Scheduled Caste candidate was available for appointment as Assistant Registrar, the University is justified in filling up that vacancy with G. Krishnctrn Rain, keeping the administrative exigencies in mind. His (Krishnam Raju's) alleged false social status certificate will not alter the position in this case, as he is not claiming the post as a Scheduled Caste candidate. The contentions raised by G. Krishnam Raju with regard to the constitution of the selection committee etc., need not be gone into in this case as he did not press the writ petition filed by him. Likewise, Mr. C. Rangappa (petitioner in WP No.10037 of 1993) went wrong in questioning the appointment of G. Krishnam Raju without knowing the factual and legal background.
37. In the light of the above, C. Rangappa cannot seek any relief against Dr. G. Krishnam Raju and vice-versa, as they arc seeking appointment for different posts from different sources. While Dr. G. Krishnam Raju was appointed as Assistant Registrar by promotion, Mr. C. Rangappa is seeking a direction to the respondent-University for appointment as Deputy Registrar by direct recruitment in a post reserved for Scheduled Castes.
38. Accordingly, WP No. 10037 of 1993 filed by Mr, Rnngappa against Mr. Krishnam Raju, 2nd respondent, is dismissed with costs as the petitioner (C. Rangappa) made wild allegations against the second respondent Krishnam Raju. Advocates Fee Rs.200/-.
39. Likewise, WP No.4464 of 1994 filed by Mr. Krishnam Raju, is dismissed as not pressed.
40. Coming to Writ Petition No. 10822 of 1994, filed by G.H. Rajyalakshmi, firstly she contended that she got highest marks in the selection and she should have been appointed as Deputy Registrar in preference to Mr. C Rangappa, But with a view to appoint Mr. C. Rangappa, the respondent-University tampered the proceedings of the Selection Committee.
41. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel, I perused the proceedings of the Selection Committee. Such an allegation was made on the basis of certain corrections made by the members of the Selection Committee while awarding marks to individuals who appeared for interview. In the process of selection, while C. Rangappa secured 25 marks. G,B. Rajyalakshmi secured 22 marks and she was placed in second rank. A took at the marks sheets of the Selection Committee members gives an impression that the members of the Selection Committee gave marks separately in the beginning and perhaps after discussion and having arrived at unanimity of opinion, they corrected the marks given to some of the candidates. As far as Rajyalakshmi is concerned, the marks were almost awarded uniformly and all the three members of the Selection Committee gave 22 marks each to her. In case of some others there are corrections in the marks 'awarded to them, but I need not refer to them specifically, as they are not anywhere nearer to either of these two individuals.
42. Coming to Mr. C. Rangappa, one Prof. T. Ranga Swami seemed to have initiallygiven '4' marks for 'administrative experience' and '8' marks in 'interview'. But, these marks were corrected as '3.5 for 'administrative experience' and '12.5' in 'interview'. As per the marks given by Jayadeva Reddy, Mr. C. Rangappa secured 25 marks and no corrections are there in this sheet, while there arc some corrections as regards the marks given to others, who are not in the picture. The Vice-Chancellor seemed to have given to Mr. C. Rangappa ' 12' marks initially for 'interview' but after discussions it w:as increased to'12.5'.
43. From this it is seen that the Vice-Chancellor as well as Prof. T. Ranga Swami veered round to the view taken by Mr. Jayadeva Reddy and the marks given by them to C. Rangappa were increased in conformity with the marks given by Mr. Jayadeva Reddy. In that process, C. Rangappa secured 25 marks i.e., '3' marks more than Rajyalakshmi. It seems that all the corrections, above-mentioned, were initialed by the concerned. After the process of awarding marks they offered their decision, in the form of a resolution in the book maintained by the University, categorically stating that Mr. C. Rangappa was found more suitable for appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar than others. Hence there is no force in the allegation of Rajyalakshmi that the proceedings of the Selection Committee were tampered. Even assuming that the enhanced marks given by the Selection Committee members to Mr. C. Rangappa are eschewed, the average of the marks given by the three members would be more than 22 i.e., the marks secured by Rajyalakshmi. On that ground also Mr. C. Rangappa was found more meritorious than B. Rajyalakshmi.
44. Secondly, it was contended that the answer scripts of the persons, appeared for the interview, in the written examination were not valued and it is her case that had the papers been valued she would have secured more number of marks. In the marks awarded by the members of the Selection Committee,practically Mr. C. Rangappa and Rajyalakshmi were given four marks each for assignment i.e., written test. It is true, a look at the answer scripts gives an impression that the papers are not valued. But, I have seen the answers written by Rajyalakshmi to the question given by the respondent-University. None of the answers are worth valuation. In fact, I showed the answers written by Rajyalakshmi to her Counsel. Even then herself and the petitioner were given 4 marks each in assignment. Hence it cannot be said that the papers are not valued. At any rate on the ground that the answer scripts were not valued specifically, I am not prepared to set at naught the entire process of selection at a belated stage more so, in the light of the fact that the controversy was going on for almost a decade and so much bad blood has flown between the parties. 1 prefer to give a quietus to UK litigation particularly when Rajyalakshmi (Petitioner in WP No.10822 of 1994) failed to establish that any injustice worth the name has been caused to her and also the fact that the Rules do not prescribe any written test for appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar by direct recruitment.
45. Lastly, it is contended byRajyalakshmi that the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee giving 25 marks, out of 50 marks, for interview, is bad, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, : AIR1987SC454 , wherein allocation of higher percentage of marks for viva voce was deprecated. As much water has flown after the selection in the last 5 years, I am not inclined to set at naught the selection process in this case; more so, in the light of the attitude of the members of the Board of Management with regard to appointment of a Scheduled Caste candidate. Further, while the selections have taken place on 2-5-1992 and C. Rangappa was given appointment as Assistant Registrar within two months thereafter, for the first time. She filed the Writ Petition two years later i.e., in 1994. On the ground of laches alone WP No.10822 of 1994, filed by Rajyalakshmi, is liable to be dismissed.
46. For all the above reasons, I do not find any substance in any of the contentions raised by G.B. Rajyalakshnii petitioner in WPNo.l0822ofl994.
47. In the light of the foregoing discussion WP No. 10037 of 1993 is allowed against 1st respondent and direction is given to the respondent-University to appoint Mr, C. Rangappa as Deputy Registrar (SC Category) from 14-5-1992, the day on which the Board refused to appoint him as Deputy Registrar pursuant to the recommendation of the Selection Committee, dated 2-5-1992 with consequential benefits i.e., arrears of salary, declaration of probation, regnlarisation of service, seniority, etc. Petitioner is entitled for costs in this Writ Petition and the respondent-University shall pay Rs.5,000 as costs.
48. At the same time this wit petition stands dismissed against 2nd respondent with costs. Advocates fee Rs.2,000/-.
49. Writ Petition No.10822 of 1994 filed by Smt. G.B. Rajva Lakshmi was dismissed as devoid of merits. But. in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
50. Before parting with the case, I am constrained to observe that unless the Government takes serious view in such type of matters, there is no security for the persons belonging to the weaker sections in the hands of the officers with biased and closed mind and in fact, the facts and figures available with the Government will establish beyond reasonable doubt because of the hostile attitude of some of the officers against the persons belonging to reserved categories, in no organisation the rule of reservation was implemented in its true spirit and every effort is being made to throw the persons belonging to these categories out of employment by using the magic word 'not suitable'. To remedy the situation, some drastic measure like disassociating such officers who are found adverse to implementation of the rule of reservation from selection process may be needed to achieve the constitutional mandate enshrinedin Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 335 of the Constitution of India.
51. In the last, I feel it appropriate to direct the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, to take the issue with the Central and State Governments and see that any violation of the Rule of Reservation on any pretext is made a cognizable offence and the erring officials are punished for violating the Constitutional mandate. Likewise, the Chief Secretary to Government, Andhra Pradesh is directed to bring to the notice of the Cabinet, the tardy implementation of the Rule of Reservation intended for Socio-economic improvement of the Backward Class citizens (BCs, SCs, and STs) and see that any violation of principle of Rule Reservation, both in services and education is made a cognizable offence and felicitate (sic facilitate) prosecution of the erring officials. A.P. BC Commission is also directed to take up the matter with the State Government evolve procedure for implementation of Rule of Reservation in its true spirit.