Tirumala Devi Eada v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Tirumala Devi Eada v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2012) 6 ALD 98 (DB)
In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
WP 34683,34805/2011, 894/2012 and PIL 10/2012
Before Justice G Rohini and JusticeAshutosh Mohunta

Relevancy of the case: Whether publication in official in electronic gazette is equal to publication in the official gazette?

Statutes & Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 2(s), 8)
  • The Constitution of India (Article 309)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The notification dated 10.8.2010 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh notified 18 vacancies in the category of District & Sessions Judges (entry level) by direct recruitment in A.P. Judicial Services. Accordingly, the Government of A.P issued advertisements in the newspaper inviting applications.
  • The mode of examination, syllabus, minimum qualifying marks to be secured and other particulars were specified in the notification. The examination was held and upon evaluation 52 candidates qualified who were required to appear for viva voce.
  • In the meanwhile by G.O. Ms No. 132, Law (LA&J SC.F) Department, A.P. Judicial Services Rules, 2007 were amended to delete the requirement of minimum marks in viva voce. The said G.O. Ms No. 132 dated 16.11.2011 was uploaded to the Official website of the Government of A.P.
  • Accordingly, the interviews were held and 17 candidates were declared to have been provisionally selected for recruitment. The provisional selection of 17 candidates for recruitment is challenged.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • Shri P. Venugopal, the learned counsel for the High Court of A.P. submitted that the impugned amendment was necessary so as to implement the law declared by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v Union of India.
  • Submitted by the prosecution, the absence of any provision prescribing a specific mode of publication, what is required is the publication in a reasonable manner.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The object of publication is only to draw the attention of the persons sought to be affected by it. Hence, there is no substance in the contention on behalf of the petitioners that publication in the Official Gazette is mandatory.
  • As could be seen in the pleadings of the writ petition, all the petitioners had knowledge about the impugned amendment by the purport. Once it is established that they were aware of the amendment, no special sanctity needs to be given to the mode of publication.

Final Decision

  • All contentions on behalf of the writ petitioners with regard to the validity and enforceability of G.O. Ms No. 132 dated 16.11.2011 is untenable.
  • The writ petitions are disposed of and selection of candidates as per the amended rule is valid.

Leave a Reply