Secretary, A. P. Public Service Commission vs B. Swapna

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 Supreme(SC) 478

2005(2) Supreme 615
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission —Appellant
versus
B. Swapna and Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1775 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23510/2003)
Decided on 16-3-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Guntur Prabhakar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : A. Subba Rao and Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocates.

Headnote:Service Law—Andhra Pradesh Service Commission (Procedure) Rules —Rule 6—Selection for 15 vacancies of Assistant Public Relations Officers finalised on 2-7-1996—Respondent applicant was placed at Serial No. 1 in wait list and wait list was valid for one year—14 vacancies were again notified on 14-4-1997—Applicant claimed entitlement for appointment and Tribunal allowed her application—Order was upheld by High Court—Appeal—Two principles in service law; firstly, there could not be appointment beyond advertised number and secondly norms of selection could not be altered after selection process had started—As per Rule 6, fall out vacancies if any due to relinquishment and non-joining etc. of selected candidates were to be notified in next recruitment—Tribunal and High Court were not justified in holding by referring to amended Rule that fall out vacancies were to be filled up from ranking list—Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
Held : High Court has committed an error in holding that the amended rule was operative. As has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for the applicant-respondent No.1 it was un-amended rule which was applicable. Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play. A person who did not apply because a certain criteria e.g. minimum percentage of marks can make a legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment if amended during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same. That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the Statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If the Rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only. (Para 16)
The Commission has been given right to freeze any ranking list. The selection from the ranking list from amongst the posts advertised was limited to the cases where the selected candidates had relinquished the selection or who had not joined the duties within the given time and also new requisitions sent by the appointing authority. The Commission did not think it appropriate to make appointment from the new requisitions. The fact that the Commission had directed that fresh advertisements were to be made is clearly indicative of the fact that the Commission did not want the new requisitions were to be filled up by appointing from the ranking list in force. The Tribunal and the High Court were therefore not justified in holding by referring to the amended rule that the fall out vacancies were to be filled up from the ranking list. The fall out vacancies in terms of the amended notification were to be notified in the next recruitment. Case of the applicant all through has been that her claim was relatable to the 14 vacancies indented on 14.4.1997 and in particular the open category. It is not her case that Commission had directed fresh advertisement though it had not freezed the rank list. It is not disputed that there cannot be direction for fresh advertisement unless the rank list is freezed. The materials placed on record clearly show that before directing fresh advertisement, the Commission had in fact for reasons recorded directed freezing. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not grant adequate time to the Commission to produce relevant records and the High Court proceeded on erroneous premises that the amended rules applied. Therefore, looked at from any angle, the High Court’s judgment affirming Tribunal’s judgment cannot be maintained. (Para 21)

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’).

3. The controversy involved in the present appeal arises in the following background:

The appellant-Commission by its advertisement No. 13/94 dated 17.1.1995 advertised for filling up 8 posts of Assistant Public Relations Officers. Subsequently, 7 more vacancies were advertised. Therefore, the recruitment was made for 15 vacancies. There were 5 zones namely, Zones I to V for which selections were to be made in the following manner:

Zone Community No. of vacancies

I OC 2

BC-B 1

II OC 2

BC-B 1

III OC 1

BC-A 1

IV OC 2

BC-B 1

ST 1

V OC 2

BC-C 1

The short abbreviations used above are: Open category-OC, Backward Classes-BC and Scheduled Tribe-ST. As noted above, amongst backward classes there were further sub-classifications i.e. BC-A, BC-B and BC-C.

4. The selections were finalised on 2.7.1996.

5. According to respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘applicant’) she was placed at Serial No. 1 in the wait list which is disputed by the appellant-Commission. At that point of time, the Andhra Pradesh Service Commission (Procedure) Rules (in short the ‘Rules’) were applicable and the existing Rule 6 was as follows:

“The ranking list prepared by the Commission for selection in a direct recruitment shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which the selection list is published on the Notice Board of the Commission or till the publication of the new selection list whichever is earlier. The Commission may select candidates from the ranking list in force in place of those who relinquish the selection or who do not join duty within the time given and also new requisitions sent by appointing authority. However, the Commission shall have the right to freeze any ranking list for reasons recorded.”

6. The wait list was valid for a period of one year. There was amendment to Rule 6 w.e.f. 30.7.1997 and the amended Rule reads as follows:

“The list of the candidates approved/selected by the Commission shall be equal to the number of vacancies only including those for reserve communities/categories notified by the Unit Officers/Government. The fall out vacancies if any due to relinquishment and non-joining etc., of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment.”

7. According to the applicant during the period of wait list the competent authority again notified 14 vacancies on 14.4.1997 and these vacancies ought to have been filled up by the candidates from the wait list. She claimed that she was entitled for appointment. The applicant moved the Tribunal by filing an Original Application. The same was disposed of with the following direction:

“In the circumstances after hearing both sides and on perusal of the material placed on record, the 1st respondent is directed to send the list of the candidates selected in Zone-IV to the Government, as indicated in the letter No. 5088/Amn. 1-3/98 dated 11.5.1998 a copy of which has been marked to the Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission without any further dela

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 478

Cases Referred (7)