Full Judgment
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.
1. This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings issued by the District Judge, Chittoor in L.Dis.No. 551-A/99, dated 29-11-1999 appointing the third respondent herein as a Copyist. It is the contention of the petitioner that a notification was issued by the District Judge on 7-1-1999 calling for applications for recruitment to the various posts including Copyists. In the column relating to qualifications, it is mentioned in the notification that the Copyists should have passed Intermediate examination and Typewriting English, Lower Grade and should be able to write Telugu. The petitioner and the third respondent applied pursuant thereto. The petitioner passed B.Com. Degree examination in first class. The petitioner also passed Intermediate Vocational Course examination in Office Assistantship in March 1994 and he was placed in first division. From the pass certificate-cum-memorandum of marks, it is seen that one of the subjects he passed is Typewriting (Papers I to III including practicals) and Shorthand (speed). As per the circular dt. 13-5-1993 issued by the High Court, while appointing Copyists, preference should be given to those candidates who know stenography. The third respondent is a graduate in B.Com. He did Post Graduation in B.Ed. course and passed B.Com. and B.Ed. Course in ordinary second class. He also passed Typewriting Lower and Higher Grade examinations. Both the petitioner and third respondent belong to O.C. (non-reserved) category.
2. Written, practical and viva voce tests were conducted for the purpose of selecting the candidates as Copyists. In the tests held, the petitioner got second rank having secured 77 marks whereas the third respondent got fourth rank having secured 74 marks. The District Judge while submitting the panel requested the High Court to select the candidates in O.C. (General) category. In fact, the District Judge should have positively sent up the proposal for appointment of the first two candidates as per the merit ranking out of the panel of six names submitted. It may be noted that the District Judge is the selecting and appointing authority. The panel is sent to the High Court not because the High Court is the appointing authority but it is only for the purpose of administrative approval. The limited purpose of placing the select-list before the High Court for approval is only to ensure that the rules and guidelines were followed by the appointing authority. The Registry placed the list before the Hon'ble Judge concerned. The Hon'ble Judge 'selected' the candidates from various categories and directed the Registry to communicate the same to the District Judge, Chittoor for appointing them to the respective posts. Accordingly, the Registry sent instructions to the District Judge, who in turn issued the impugned proceedings appointing the third respondent against one of the O.C. vacancies of Copyists. The Hon'ble Judge of the High Court preferred to select the candidates at Sl.Nos. 3 and 4 in the panel who have got lesser marks than the candidates at Sl.Nos. 1 and 2 (the second candidate being the writ petitioner herein). The candidate at Sl.No. 4 in the panel (third respondent herein) was 'selected' by the High Court for the reason that he was a Post-Graduate with Typewriting Higher Grade examination. He has got three marks less than the writ petitioner. The candidate at Sl.No. 3 was selected for the reason that he was a Post-Graduate having Law Degree with Typewriting Higher Grade qualification.
3. The question is whether such selection is proper and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We find from the record that the Selection Committee assigned marks for various heads viz., academic qualifications, technical qualifications, typewriting test, extra-curricular activities, viva voce etc. In doing so, weightage for Post-Graduation was given by adding one mark if the candidate passed in ordinary class, two marks if the candidate passed in second class and three marks if the candidate passed in first class. The third respondent having passed B.Ed. in II Division was awarded two marks extra. So also, for Typewriting Higher Grade, additional mark was awarded. Despite giving such weightage, the third respondent obtained lesser marks than the petitioner. This aspect obviously escaped the notice of the High Court. Prima facie, we do not find any infirmities in the process of selection adopted by the Selection Committee headed by the District Judge and hence we find no justification to disturb the merit order for choosing the candidates at a lower position.
4. In the course of hearing, we entertained a doubt whether passing of Intermediate Vocational Course in Office Assistantship with Typewriting subjects would tantamount to possessing the qualification of Typewriting Lower Grade. In fact, the petitioner was not disqualified on that account. However, to satisfy ourselves, we requested the Counsel to clarify the same. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before us G.O.Ms.No. 212, Technical Education Department, dt. 28-7-1986 according to which the candidates who passed the Intermediate Vocational Course in Office Assistantship be recognized as equivalent to pass in Typewriting Higher Grade and Shorthand Lower Grade examinations conducted by the A.P. State Board of Technical Education and Training'. That apart, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in fact passed Lower Grade Typewriting English examination held in the year 1993 by the State Board of Technical Education and Training. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also asserts that the said certificate was filed along with the application. Thus, it seems to us that prima facie the petitioner cannot be disqualified on the ground that he does not have the basic qualification of passing Typewriting Lower Grade examination. Moreover, the petitioner must be deemed to be possessing qualification in Shorthand Lower Grade by virtue of the orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 222 dt. 28-7-1986 and such qualification, according to the circular issued by the High Court, is a preferential qualification. This aspect was also obviously not taken into account by the High Court.
5. For all the reasons, we are of the view that the appointment order issued to the third respondent by superseding the petitioner is based on non-appreciation of relevant factors by the High Court and that it requires re-consideration by the High Court, keeping in view the observations in the Judgment. It is needless to state that if the High Court finds that the petitioner should have been preferred to the third respondent, the appointment of the third respondent, which is temporary, is liable to be set aside and the petitioner will have to be appointed in his place subject to the usual formalities. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without costs.
6. Before closing the case, we would like to advert to the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent that there was undue delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and therefore the relief should be denied on that account. We find it difficult to accept this contention. The time lag of about seven months cannot be considered to be such unreasonable delay as to disentitle the petitioner to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has explained that he was not aware of the result of the selections and the appointments made and it is only after he obtained definite information, the writ petition could be filed. We see no reason to disbelieve this explanation.