- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
J. Ashok Kumar v. State Of A.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner applied for selection to the post of Assistant Excise Superintendent, Group I Service, by direct recruitment. Relying on GOMs No. 1136 dated 13-9-1986 (amending Rule 4 of the A.P. Excise Service Rules to provide 5% marks weightage for NCC candidates), the petitioner claimed entitlement to such weightage. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s petition, and the petitioner pursued the matter through a special leave petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an NCC-qualified candidate appearing for selection by direct recruitment for Assistant Excise Superintendent was eligible for the 5% marks weightage under the amended Rule 4 of the A.P. Excise Service Rules.
- Whether the petitioner could be granted relief after the selection process had concluded and candidates had already been selected and appointed.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- GOMs No. 1136 dated 13-9-1986 amended Rule 4 to grant 5% marks weightage for selection to an NCC candidate.
- The petitioner, having appeared for direct recruitment as Assistant Excise Superintendent, should have received the 5% weightage.
- The Tribunal was unjustified in dismissing the petitioner’s petition.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court accepted the petitioner’s interpretation of the amended rule, holding that the benefit of weightage for NCC qualification applied to candidates appearing for selection even through direct recruitment. However, the Court declined to grant the benefit to the petitioner because the selection process had already concluded and candidates had been selected and appointed, making relief impracticable in the circumstances described.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The special leave petition was dismissed.
Implications: Although the Court found merit in the petitioner’s contention that NCC weightage applied to direct recruitment selections, the petitioner received no relief because appointments had already been made. The decision’s direct effect is that the existing selection and appointments remained undisturbed; no broader implications or new precedent were stated in the opinion.
Order
1. Mr L.N Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that under GOMs No. 1136, dated 13-9-1986 Rule 4 of the A.P Excise Service Rules was amended giving weightage of 5% of the marks for selection to an NCC candidate and that the petitioner had appeared for the post of Assistant Excise Superintendent, Group I Service, by direct recruitment. He should have been given weightage of 5% marks and the Tribunal was unjustified in dismissing his petition. We find force in his contention. Any candidate who appeared for the selection even for direct recruitment would be eligible to be considered for the weightage provided to candidate having NCC qualification. But since the selection has already been over and candidates were selected and appointed, we cannot give the benefit to the petitioner.
2. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Alert