Supreme Court of India
ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE versus KOTA LINGESWARA RAO & ORS. on 11 December 2019
ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
v.
KOTA LINGESWARA RAO & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 9338 of 2019)
DECEMBER 11, 2019
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ANDK.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules:
r.6 (amended) and r.7 – Claim for appointment – On the postwhich fell vacant due to relinquishment of the same by the lastselected candidate – By the candidate next in the select merit list –By filing application before Administrative Tribunal – The Tribunaldismissed the application on the ground of delay and laches – HighCourt set aside the order of Tribunal directing appointment of thecandidate – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The amended r.6 hasdone away with the system of rank list remaining in force for aperiod of one year and mandates notification of such falloutvacancies in the next recruitment – Rule 7 also makes it clear thatselection for the relinquished vacancy has to be as per the existingRules – Thus, the respondent-candidate has no right to claimselection as per the Rules – Appeal allowed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.9338 of2019.
From the impugned final Judgment and Order dated 12.07.2018of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telanganaand the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.3695/2018.
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Ms. M.V. Rama, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Advs.for the Appellant.
J. Sudheer, Sumanth Nookala, G. N. Reddy, T. Vijya BhaskarReddy, Ms. Sujatta Bagadhi, Advs. for the Respondents.
79
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
AThe following Order of the Court was passed:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
B2. The interpretation of Rule 6 (amended) and Rule 7 of AndhraPradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (“the APPSCRules”) is in question in this appeal.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that a written test andoral test were conducted for selection to the post of Junior Lecturer inCMathematics, and results were published by the appellant herein, theAndhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (“the Commission”) on03.12.2011. Respondent No.1, who belongs to the Open Category(“OC”), secured 380.50 marks, whereas one Mr. G.V. RamakrishnaSagar (the last selected candidate in the OC in Zone-III) secured 393.00marks. Consequently, Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar was declaredDselected. The selection was finalized and the same was sent to the UnitOfficers on 04.09.2012. However, Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar chosenot to join the post. Respondent No. 1 herein, after waiting for fouryears, filed Original Application No. 3142 of 2016 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal on 02.08.2016, claiming appointment in theEvacancy created due to non-joining of Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar,since he was the candidate with the next highest marks in the selectmerit list. The said Original Application No. 3142 of 2016 was dismissedon the ground of delay and laches. Being aggrieved by the same,Respondent No. 1 carried the matter before the High Court by filingFWrit Petition (C) No. 3695 of 2018. The High Court vide the impugnedjudgment found that the vacancy for the post of Junior Lecturer inMathematics had not been filled up since the last OC candidate did notjoin duty, and allowed the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, directingthe Commission to appoint Respondent No.1 to the said post.
G4. Heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing on behalfof the appellant/Commission and Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counselappearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for both theparties have taken us through the material on record and the concernedrules.
H
5. It is relevant to note that Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules wasamended on 22.02.1997 and a notification was issued for selection tothe post of Junior Lecturer in Mathematics on 26.11.2008. Beforeproceeding further, it is relevant to note the unamended and amendedRule 6 as well as Rule 7 of the APPSC Rules:
“Rule-6 (Prior to amendment)- The ranking list prepared by theCommission for selection in a direct recruitment shall remain inforce for a period of one year from the date of which the selectionlist is published on the Notice Board of the Commissioner or tillthe publication of the new selection list whichever is earlier. TheCommission may select candidates from the ranking list in forcein place of those who relinquish the selection or who do not joinduty within the time given and also new requisitions (sent byappointing authorities). However, the Commission shall have theright to freeze any ranking list for reasons recorded.
Rule 6: (After amendment) - The list of the candidates approved/selected by the Commission shall be equal to the number ofvacancies only including those for reserved communities/categoriesnotified by the Unit Officers Government. The fallout vacanciesif any due to relinquishment and non-joining etc., of selectedcandidates shall be notified in the next recruitment.
Rule 7: Any candidate whose name has been included in a selectionlist in a direct recruitment prepared by the Commission, on enquiryby the Commission, may relinquish his claim for appointment inwriting in the Proforma prescribed by the Commission. TheCommission shall there Upon remove the name of such candidatefrom the selection list and select any other candidate according torules. The candidate whose name has been so removed from theselection list shall be informed of such removal by the Commissionand shall have no right for the said appointment in future withreference to the said selection.”
6. The unamended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules stated that theranking list prepared by the Commission for selection in a directrecruitment would remain in force for a period of one year from the dateof publication of the selection list, or till the publication of the new selectionlist, whichever was earlier. It further provided that it would be open forthe Commission to select the candidates from the ranking list in place of A
BC
D
E
F
G
H
Athose who relinquished the selection or who did not join duty within thetime given. Thus, the ranking list would in effect function as a waitinglist for one year (maximum). After the amendment of Rule 6, such waitingperiod has been given a go by. The amended Rule 6 of the APPSCRules specifies that the list of the candidates approved/selected by theCommission shall be equal to the number of vacancies. It further specifiesBthat the fallout vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and non-joiningetc. of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment, clearlyindicating that the process of issuance of waiting list has beendiscontinued.
7. Rule 7 of the APPSC Rules further makes it clear that in caseCa candidate relinquishes his claim for appointment in writing, theCommission shall remove the name of such candidate from the selectionlist and select any other candidate according to the Rules. Thus, it isclarified in Rule 7 that selection must be as per the existing Rules.
8. In the matter on hand, Respondent No. 1, as mentioned supra,Dapproached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal for appointment four yearsafter the date of relinquishment of the post by Mr. G.V. RamakrishnaSagar. Firstly, he has to be non-suited due to delay and laches. Secondly,even on merits, we do not find any ground to show leniency in favour ofRespondent No.1 inasmuch as the selection, if made in favour ofERespondent No. 1, would go against the Rules.
9. As discussed above, after the amendment of Rule 6, the systemof a waiting list remaining in force for a period of one year has beendone away with. The Rule also makes it clear that the fallout vacancies,if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining etc. of the selected candidatesFshall be notified in the next recruitment. Hence, the Commission doesnot have the power to invite the next selected candidate if the last selectedcandidate does not opt to join the post, and must publish the vacant postin the next recruitment only. In view of the same, Respondent No. 1being a non-selected candidate, cannot urge the Commission to selecthim based on the unamended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules. He is boundGby the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules, inasmuch as Rule 6 wasamended on 22.02.1997.
10. In view of the specific mandate of the amended Rule 6 of theAPPSC Rules, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not justifiedin granting relief in favour of Respondent No. 1 ignoring amended RuleH6. Both the Rules i.e. Rule 6 (amended) and Rule 7 have to be read harmoniously. Rule 7 will sub-serve the intention of the amended Rule 6of the APPSC Rules, since it specifically mentions that selection of anew candidate, after relinquishment of a post by another candidate, shallbe done in accordance with the rules, which would mean the rules inforce at that time. Furthermore, it has also been brought to our noticethat the Commission deleted Rule 7 by G.P. Ms. No. 139 on 28.07.2016,having found that the said rule, to a certain extent, was creating confusionin the selection process.
11. Be that as it may, since Respondent No. 1 has no right toclaim selection as per the APPSC Rules, no relief could have been grantedto him. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of theHigh Court stands set aside.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H