The State Of Ap vs. Mohammad Nafeeza Sultana
Court:High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Judge:Hon'ble G.Narendar
Case Status:Unknown Status
Order Date:2 Apr 2024
CNR:APHC010333252023
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Admission
Before:
Hon'ble G.Narendar , Harinath.N
Listed On:
2 Apr 2024
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
APHC010333252023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3480]
TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL No: 715/2023
Between:
The State of A.P and Others ...Appellant(S)
AND
Mohammad Nafeeza Sultana ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
GP for Village and Ward Secretariats
Counsel for the Respondent:
MASTAN VALI SHAIK
The Court made the following:
Sl. | DATE | ORDER | OFFICE |
---|---|---|---|
No. | NOTE | ||
02.04.2024 | GN, J & HN, J | ||
I.A. No.1 OF 2023 | |||
1.<br>We have heard the learned Government | |||
Pleader for Village & Ward Secretariats | |||
appearing<br>for<br>the<br>appellants<br>and<br>the | Contd |
02.04.2024 | learned counsel for the respondent. | ||
---|---|---|---|
(contn) | 2. | There is a delay<br>of 38 days in filing the | |
present Writ Appeal. | |||
3. | We examined the pleadings with regard | ||
to the delay in filing the Appeal and we | |||
are<br>also<br>satisfied<br>with<br>the<br>reasons | |||
assigned. Therefore, the delay of 38<br>days | |||
in<br>filing<br>the<br>present<br>Writ<br>Appeal<br>is | |||
condoned<br>and<br>this<br>Interlocutory | |||
Application is ordered. | |||
________ | |||
GN, J | |||
_________ | |||
HN, J | |||
I.A. No.2 of 2023 | |||
1. | We have heard the submissions of the | ||
learned Government Pleader for Village & | |||
Ward<br>Secretariats<br>representing<br>the | |||
appellants<br>and<br>the<br>learned<br>counsel | |||
representing the sole respondent. | |||
2. | The learned Government Pleader for the | ||
appellants has drawn the attention of this | |||
Court to page No.144 of the Writ Appeal, | |||
which is the screenshot of the webpage | |||
and<br>pointed<br>out<br>the<br>publication<br>of | |||
addendum<br>whereby<br>the<br>authorities | Contd… | ||
amended the qualification of Intermediate |
with<br>Biology/Vocational<br>Course<br>in | ||
---|---|---|
02.04.2024<br>(contn) | Fisheries notified in the notification dated | |
26.07.2019 and by the amendment, the | ||
word "Biology" was deleted and retained | ||
the<br>qualification<br>Intermediate<br>with | ||
vocational course in Fisheries. | ||
3.<br>It is the case of the respondent that no | ||
such addendum was published and that | ||
the amendment to the recruitment rules | ||
only came to be notified on 21.11.2019<br>and | ||
hence<br>the<br>same<br>is<br>inapplicable.<br>The | ||
challenge in the<br>writ petition is not to the | ||
addendum,<br>but<br>on<br>this<br>ground,<br>the | ||
selection/appointing<br>authority<br>has<br>no | ||
right to change the eligibility criteria in | ||
the midway after the process for selection | ||
has been commenced. In other words, the | ||
learned counsel would contend that the | ||
rules cannot be changed in the midway | ||
after the process for selection has been | ||
commenced. | ||
4.<br>In the case on hand, it appears that the | ||
last date for submitting the applications | ||
was 10.08.2019, the applicant (respondent | ||
herein) submitted her application only on | ||
31.07.2019 and the addendum published | ||
on the webpage on 29.07.2019 that is | Contd… | |
02.04.2024<br>(contn) | much before the applicant (respondent<br>herein) could submit her application. | ||
---|---|---|---|
5. | Mere issuance of a hall ticket allowing the | ||
applicant<br>(respondent herein)<br>to sit for an | |||
examination or verification of testimonials | |||
does not automatically make the applicant | |||
eligible if she does not meet the eligibility | |||
criteria.<br>Since there was no challenge to | |||
the notification of the addendum, it is not | |||
open for the respondent to contend that | |||
the selection/appointing authority did not | |||
have the right to change the eligibility | |||
criteria. | |||
6. | Needless to say, it is no longer res integra | ||
that deciding the eligibility criteria is the | |||
sole domain of the appointing authority. | |||
The<br>appointing<br>authority<br>changed<br>the | |||
eligibility<br>criteria<br>even<br>before<br>the | |||
respondent<br>submitted<br>her<br>application. | |||
The<br>same<br>criteria<br>applicable<br>to<br>all | |||
candidates<br>and<br>not<br>discriminatory<br>in | |||
nature.<br>However, the learned single Judge | |||
considered<br>the<br>case<br>of<br>the<br>respondent | |||
granting prayer in the writ petition. | |||
7. | Hence, prima<br>facie,<br>this Court deems it | Contd… | |
just<br>and<br>appropriate<br>to<br>grant<br>interim | |||
suspension of the order impugned in the |
Writ<br>Appeal<br>and<br>accordingly,<br>this | |
---|---|
02.04.2024<br>(contn) | interlocutory application is ordered. |
________ | |
GN, J | |
________ | |
HN, J | |
W.A. No.715 OF 2023 | |
List the matter in usual course. | |
________<br>GN, J | |
________ | |
HN, J | |
BV | |
Share This Order
Case History of Orders
Similar Case Search